{"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349","prev":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=348","next":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=350","last":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=365"},"meta":{"pages":{"current_page":349,"next_page":350,"prev_page":348,"total_pages":365,"limit_value":10,"offset_value":3480,"total_count":3649,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false}},"data":[{"id":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04_c30","type":"File","attributes":{"title":"Undate fragments of documents, 1870/1920","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04_c30#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04_c30","ref_ssm":["viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04_c30"],"id":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04_c30","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_root_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04","parent_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04","parent_ssim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","Legal Documents, 1885/1950"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_repositories_4_resources_66","viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04"],"title_filing_ssi":"Undate fragments of documents","title_ssm":["Undate fragments of documents"],"title_tesim":["Undate fragments of documents"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Undate fragments of documents, 1870/1920"],"text":["Undate fragments of documents, 1870/1920","Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","Legal Documents, 1885/1950","box MSS 79-6, Box 143"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","Legal Documents, 1885/1950"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","Legal Documents, 1885/1950"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1870/1920"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["[c. 1870-1920]"],"level_ssm":["File"],"level_ssim":["File"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":1257,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"containers_ssim":["box MSS 79-6, Box 143"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["Some of these files are restricted."],"date_range_isim":[1870,1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878,1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920],"_nest_path_":"/components#3/components#29","timestamp":"2026-09-17T13:57:56.004Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_root_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/oai/UVA/repositories_4_resources_66.xml","aspace_url_ssi":"https://archives.lib.virginia.edu/ark:/59853/106865","title_ssm":["Duke family law firm papers"],"title_tesim":["Duke family law firm papers"],"unitdate_ssm":["circa 1820 - 1959"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["circa 1820 - 1959"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1820/1959"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"text":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","MSS.79.6","Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","/repositories/4/resources/66","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century","practice of law -- Virginia","lawyers -- Virginia","Some of these files are restricted.","The papers are organized into 8 series: 1st-6th series concern the law practice; 7th series, the insurance business; and the 8th, family business.","Series I. Incoming letters (boxes 1-43) -- From 1869 to 1923 (and occasionally through the 1940's) incoming letters were filed separately from other material. From 1899 to 1923 all incoming letters were stored annually in special file boxes arranged alphabetically by correspondent's name. The papers in this series are arranged as they were found.","Series II. Copies of outgoing letters (boxes 44-57) -- From the 1870's through the teens copies of outgoing letters were kept chronologically in letterpress books. The books are stored in chronological order.","Series III. Case files (boxes 58-125) -- The case files date back to 1874, but are concentrated between 1920 and 1955. While the dates of these case files overlap the chronological ones described above, case files were by no means regularly created until the early twenties when the other system was virtually abandoned. Since many, but not all, of the case files were numbered, it was impossible to restore them to numerical order. Therefore, they have been grouped into decades and then arranged alphabetically by title found on the original folder. If the original folder was numbered, that number is noted on the new one. The cases concern principally the settlement of debts, property and divorce, as well as, for the last few decades, insurance claims.","Series IV. Legal documents (boxes 126-145) -- These documents, originally stored apart from case files, are organized chronologically according to type of document, the largest groups of which are deeds (1885-1929) and titles (1876-1936). Also included in this series are documents related to specific cases (ca. 1870-1925), to the coal business, and to miscellaneous matters (ca. 1800-1950).","Series V. Financial papers (boxes 146-167 and oversize) -- The financial papers were likewise apparently filed separately in the office. They include notes, bonds, collections, accounts, bills, taxes, etc., and are arranged alphabetically (ca. 1870-1950). Ledgers containing the same sort of financial records are organized by size.","Series VI. General office correspondendence and cases (boxes 168-185) -- This alphabetical file, ca. 1920-1955, was apparently created for routine correspondence concerning clients and office matters. For some reason, certain cases were also incorporated into the alphabetical system, despite the fact that numbered case files continued to be created until the practice closed. (To complicate matters a bit further, there seem to have been two alphabetical files used consecutively. These have now been merged into one.) This series contains correspondence and case files, desk diaries, memoranda, unfiled office papers, and files relating to the insurance companies Eskridge represented.","Series VII. Insurance agency files (boxes 186-217) -- These files of the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville, 1923-1927, cover the period in which W.F. Carter, Jr., was agent. At the beginning of the series are documents concerning the audit of the agency and the subsequent incorporation.","Series VIII. Family business files, civic material and miscellany (boxes 218-232) -- These records, dating from the 1880's, provide a good deal of information about the financial affairs of the Charlottesville Dukes as well as their relatives.","Richard Thomas Walker Duke, son of Richard and Maria Walker Duke, was born 6 June 1822 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he spent his childhood. After attending private schools, he entered Virginia Military Institute and finished second in the class of 1845. Upon graduating he taught school in Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), but returned to Charlottesville when his father died in 1849, and began studying law at the University. In 1850, he started his own law practice, and over the next ten years built a law office, was chosen one of Charlottesville's first aldermen, served briefly as mayor, and became commonwealth's attorney. He married Elizabeth Scott Eskridge of Staunton, and they had two sons, William and R. T. W. Jr. (Tom), and a daughter, Mary, all of whom lived to adulthood; two other children died in childhood.","As colonel of the 48th Regiment of the Virginia Volunteers, R. T. W. Duke took an active role in the Civil War. In 1864, he resigned his commission because of a dispute with a superior officer, but re-enlisted thirty days later. He surrendered with his troops at Silas Creek in 1865, and returned to his law practice and position as commonwealth's attorney. From that time on, Duke was known as \"the Colonel,\" and in honor of his service in the recent war, the local camp for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was named for him.","In 1863 Duke bought Sunnyside, a 70-acre tract of land northeast of Charlottesville (on which the Law School is now located), and farmed this property until his death. He was chosen secretary/treasurer of the board of trustees of the Samuel Miller Fund, established in 1869. In 1870, Duke assumed the fifth district's Congressional seat for two terms as a member of the Conservative party. Lobbying for a strong South throughout his term, Duke actively opposed the 14th Amendment. R. T. W. Duke died after a lingering illness in the summer of 1898.","William R. Duke, born in 1849, possessed his father's farming instincts and commitment to political involvement. Together they farmed and resided at Sunnyside, whose ownership William shared with his brother Tom after their father's death. Although William studied law at Virginia, and in 1883 joined his father's law practice, he devoted more energy to farming and such groups as the Virginia Cattlemen's Association. In 1897 he was elected delegate to the Virginia General Assembly. Like his father, William was also involved in local affairs, serving, for example, as clerk of the Miller Fund board of trustees for many years. William died in 1929 and was survived by his sons, William (Billy) and Camman.","Since he was born in 1853, Richard Thomas Walker Duke Jr. (Tom) witnessed the Civil War during his impressionable boyhood years and later wrote about those experiences. A gifted writer and student of languages, Tom studied classics, French, German, and English literature when he entered the University of Virginia in 1870. He was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Prize for the best essay in 1872, and then turned his attention to the study of law in 1873-74. It is likely that he later read law for a time in his father's office before passing the bar. Although the practice of law became his career, Duke wrote prose and poetry the rest of his life, and was published in the New York Herald and such magazines as Century, Lippincott's, and Illustrated American.","Throughout his long career, Tom was active in town, University, and state affairs. Among the organizations in which he held office were the Masons, Zeta Psi fraternity, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Miller Board, the UVA Alumni Association, and the state Democratic Committee. He served from 1886 to 1901 as judge of the Corporation Court (now called the Circuit Court), as commonwealth's attorney from 1916 to 1920, and as a member of the Committee to Revise the Virginia Code in 1908. In addition, he sat on the boards of a variety of corporations, including the Charlottesville Ice Company, the First National Bank, and a number of Kentucky and West Virginia coal development companies in which his family had invested. From 1907 to 1910, Tom edited the Virginia Law Journal.","Tom Duke married Edith Ridgeway Slaughter in 1884, and they produced six children, of whom five grew to maturity: Mary, R. T. W. III (Walker), John Flavel Slaughter (Jack), William Eskridge, and Helen Risdon. He built a spacious home for his family at 616 Park Street. A frequent traveller because of his practice, Duke also travelled for pleasure. As the children grew up, Edith often accompanied him to New York or Washington to shop, visit friends and attend plays, or she took journeys alone to visit children and other relatives. All the Duke children, as they reached their teens, attended boarding school, and all received at least some college education. Edith Duke died suddenly in 1921, and two years later, Tom married Maymee Richardson Slaughter, his wife's sister-in-law from Lynchburg. In March of 1926 Tom died at the age of 76.","Walker, after a few years in the Navy, joined the Army and became a career officer. Jack served in the Army during World War I, and then began a career in business. In 1917, Eskridge took a law degree at Virginia and joined his father's practice. He was plagued by ill-health throughout his career, and soon after their father's death, his sister Mary, a former social worker, began assisting in the law office. Helen, a librarian, worked in New York and Norfolk for a year or so before moving back to the family home. Eskridge and his wife, Lucy Lee, had three children, of whom two, William Eskridge Jr. (Bill) and Lucy Marshall, grew to adulthood. Jack died in 1933; Eskridge, in 1959; Walker, in 1960; Mary, in 1966; and Helen, in 1984.","The Charlottesville law practice established by R. T. W. Duke in 1850 remained in the family for two succeeding generations. After studying law with John B. Minor at the University of Virginia, Duke practiced alone until 1858, when he built his office at 20 Court House Square and took James D. Jones as a partner. Another lawyer, Louis G. Hanckel, joined the firm in the early seventies and handled insurance business. When Tom finished his legal studies in 1874, he assisted his father, whose partner by then was Stephen V. Southall. In the 1880's the firm was called Duke \u0026 Duke, William having joined his father shortly before Tom became judge.","The early work of the firm was limited to real estate, debt collection, and probate work, with an occasional criminal case. In addition, there was ample time for all three lawyers to pursue their assorted outside interests. At the office each man wrote his own letters, Tom switching to a Remington typewriter in 1889, before the days when they could hire a stenographer. The Dukes handled property rentals for some of their clients, the wealthiest and best known of whom was Jefferson Levy, owner of Monticello, the Opera House, and a great deal of other property in town.","With the combination of \"the Colonel's\" death, the social and economic changes in town around the turn of the century, and the energetic leadership of Tom, the workload of the practice increased and became more diverse. Loan and bond operations were added to the civil and criminal work and property management. Around 1917, Eskridge and Clarence E. Gentry joined the firm, now called Duke, Duke and Gentry. The law office was torn down in 1922, and the firm moved to a building shared with other lawyers at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson Streets. The practice flourished, and the Dukes often hired Virginia law students or graduates as clerks or associates, including Elizabeth Tompkins (the first female graduate of the Law School), Bernard Chamberlain, Anna Dinwiddie, and John Yancy.","It has not been determined whether the Dukes sold insurance after Hanckel left, but some time after Eskridge joined the firm in the late teens, the Insurance Agency was established. The title was changed to the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville in 1923, when W. F. Carter Jr. as agent. After Carter misappropriated funds, he was relieved of his job, the agency was incorporated, and the Dukes' interest in the business was eventually bought out by William B. Murphy.","Eskridge carried on the law practice with the assistance of Mary and an occasional associate. In 1937, he wrote that his firm \"is regional and local counsel for a number of insurance companies, Virginia counsel for the Pike Coal Company, and does a general legal business, specializing in insurance, real estate, corporation and probate law, also maintains a collection department.\" With his failing health in the late forties, the practice dwindled until 1955, when Duke and Duke closed a little over a hundred years after it began.","The Duke law firm papers include correspondence, case files, legal, insuarance, and financial records, as well as ledgers. The files provide extensive documentation of a small-town family practice. Since the insurance business and the Dukes's family business affairs were handled in the same office as the law practice, these files had remained with the legal files. The family correspondence found with these papers was transferred to Special Collections in Alderman Library.","The Duke papers were transferred from the first Duke office to the second Duke office, finally to their third office on Park Street, where they apparently were shifted more than once. Things were unavoidably jumbled, but the order within the cartons, the types of file boxes and folders, and the dates made it possible to reconstruct the original filing arrangements.","This collection is rich in source material for scholars of legal, social, or local history. The first area of research focuses on the changes in the character of this small-town law practice from the post-Civil War to the post-World War II periods. There are well-documented accounts in the shifts in the type of legal work the law firm handled, the daily office operations over the years, the economic vicissitudes of the practice, and the attitudes of three generations of lawyers. There is information on the political, economic, and social conditions of the Charlottesville area during the time span of the Dukes' law practice.","Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections","Duke family","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"collection_ssim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["MSS.79.6","Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","/repositories/4/resources/66"],"unitid_tesim":["MSS.79.6","Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","/repositories/4/resources/66"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"geogname_ssm":["Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century"],"geogname_ssim":["Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century"],"places_ssim":["Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century"],"creator_ssm":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959"],"creator_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959"],"creator_persname_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929"],"creator_corpname_ssim":["Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections"],"creator_famname_ssim":["Duke family"],"creators_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929","Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections","Duke family"],"acqinfo_ssim":["The collection was a gift of Helen R. Duke in 1979.","The addendum to the papers of the Duke \u0026 Duke law firm was donated by William E. Duke and Lucy D. Kinne to the Law Library in October of 1985 after the death of Helen Duke, donor of the original gift."],"access_subjects_ssim":["practice of law -- Virginia","lawyers -- Virginia"],"access_subjects_ssm":["practice of law -- Virginia","lawyers -- Virginia"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"extent_ssm":["108.5  Linear Feet 232 boxes"],"extent_tesim":["108.5  Linear Feet 232 boxes"],"date_range_isim":[1820,1821,1822,1823,1824,1825,1826,1827,1828,1829,1830,1831,1832,1833,1834,1835,1836,1837,1838,1839,1840,1841,1842,1843,1844,1845,1846,1847,1848,1849,1850,1851,1852,1853,1854,1855,1856,1857,1858,1859,1860,1861,1862,1863,1864,1865,1866,1867,1868,1869,1870,1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878,1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSome of these files are restricted.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Conditions Governing Access"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["Some of these files are restricted."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe papers are organized into 8 series: 1st-6th series concern the law practice; 7th series, the insurance business; and the 8th, family business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries I. Incoming letters (boxes 1-43) -- From 1869 to 1923 (and occasionally through the 1940's) incoming letters were filed separately from other material. From 1899 to 1923 all incoming letters were stored annually in special file boxes arranged alphabetically by correspondent's name. The papers in this series are arranged as they were found.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries II. Copies of outgoing letters (boxes 44-57) -- From the 1870's through the teens copies of outgoing letters were kept chronologically in letterpress books. The books are stored in chronological order.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries III. Case files (boxes 58-125) -- The case files date back to 1874, but are concentrated between 1920 and 1955. While the dates of these case files overlap the chronological ones described above, case files were by no means regularly created until the early twenties when the other system was virtually abandoned. Since many, but not all, of the case files were numbered, it was impossible to restore them to numerical order. Therefore, they have been grouped into decades and then arranged alphabetically by title found on the original folder. If the original folder was numbered, that number is noted on the new one. The cases concern principally the settlement of debts, property and divorce, as well as, for the last few decades, insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries IV. Legal documents (boxes 126-145) -- These documents, originally stored apart from case files, are organized chronologically according to type of document, the largest groups of which are deeds (1885-1929) and titles (1876-1936). Also included in this series are documents related to specific cases (ca. 1870-1925), to the coal business, and to miscellaneous matters (ca. 1800-1950).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries V. Financial papers (boxes 146-167 and oversize) -- The financial papers were likewise apparently filed separately in the office. They include notes, bonds, collections, accounts, bills, taxes, etc., and are arranged alphabetically (ca. 1870-1950). Ledgers containing the same sort of financial records are organized by size.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries VI. General office correspondendence and cases (boxes 168-185) -- This alphabetical file, ca. 1920-1955, was apparently created for routine correspondence concerning clients and office matters. For some reason, certain cases were also incorporated into the alphabetical system, despite the fact that numbered case files continued to be created until the practice closed. (To complicate matters a bit further, there seem to have been two alphabetical files used consecutively. These have now been merged into one.) This series contains correspondence and case files, desk diaries, memoranda, unfiled office papers, and files relating to the insurance companies Eskridge represented.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries VII. Insurance agency files (boxes 186-217) -- These files of the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville, 1923-1927, cover the period in which W.F. Carter, Jr., was agent. At the beginning of the series are documents concerning the audit of the agency and the subsequent incorporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries VIII. Family business files, civic material and miscellany (boxes 218-232) -- These records, dating from the 1880's, provide a good deal of information about the financial affairs of the Charlottesville Dukes as well as their relatives.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Arrangement"],"arrangement_tesim":["The papers are organized into 8 series: 1st-6th series concern the law practice; 7th series, the insurance business; and the 8th, family business.","Series I. Incoming letters (boxes 1-43) -- From 1869 to 1923 (and occasionally through the 1940's) incoming letters were filed separately from other material. From 1899 to 1923 all incoming letters were stored annually in special file boxes arranged alphabetically by correspondent's name. The papers in this series are arranged as they were found.","Series II. Copies of outgoing letters (boxes 44-57) -- From the 1870's through the teens copies of outgoing letters were kept chronologically in letterpress books. The books are stored in chronological order.","Series III. Case files (boxes 58-125) -- The case files date back to 1874, but are concentrated between 1920 and 1955. While the dates of these case files overlap the chronological ones described above, case files were by no means regularly created until the early twenties when the other system was virtually abandoned. Since many, but not all, of the case files were numbered, it was impossible to restore them to numerical order. Therefore, they have been grouped into decades and then arranged alphabetically by title found on the original folder. If the original folder was numbered, that number is noted on the new one. The cases concern principally the settlement of debts, property and divorce, as well as, for the last few decades, insurance claims.","Series IV. Legal documents (boxes 126-145) -- These documents, originally stored apart from case files, are organized chronologically according to type of document, the largest groups of which are deeds (1885-1929) and titles (1876-1936). Also included in this series are documents related to specific cases (ca. 1870-1925), to the coal business, and to miscellaneous matters (ca. 1800-1950).","Series V. Financial papers (boxes 146-167 and oversize) -- The financial papers were likewise apparently filed separately in the office. They include notes, bonds, collections, accounts, bills, taxes, etc., and are arranged alphabetically (ca. 1870-1950). Ledgers containing the same sort of financial records are organized by size.","Series VI. General office correspondendence and cases (boxes 168-185) -- This alphabetical file, ca. 1920-1955, was apparently created for routine correspondence concerning clients and office matters. For some reason, certain cases were also incorporated into the alphabetical system, despite the fact that numbered case files continued to be created until the practice closed. (To complicate matters a bit further, there seem to have been two alphabetical files used consecutively. These have now been merged into one.) This series contains correspondence and case files, desk diaries, memoranda, unfiled office papers, and files relating to the insurance companies Eskridge represented.","Series VII. Insurance agency files (boxes 186-217) -- These files of the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville, 1923-1927, cover the period in which W.F. Carter, Jr., was agent. At the beginning of the series are documents concerning the audit of the agency and the subsequent incorporation.","Series VIII. Family business files, civic material and miscellany (boxes 218-232) -- These records, dating from the 1880's, provide a good deal of information about the financial affairs of the Charlottesville Dukes as well as their relatives."],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eRichard Thomas Walker Duke, son of Richard and Maria Walker Duke, was born 6 June 1822 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he spent his childhood. After attending private schools, he entered Virginia Military Institute and finished second in the class of 1845. Upon graduating he taught school in Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), but returned to Charlottesville when his father died in 1849, and began studying law at the University. In 1850, he started his own law practice, and over the next ten years built a law office, was chosen one of Charlottesville's first aldermen, served briefly as mayor, and became commonwealth's attorney. He married Elizabeth Scott Eskridge of Staunton, and they had two sons, William and R. T. W. Jr. (Tom), and a daughter, Mary, all of whom lived to adulthood; two other children died in childhood.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs colonel of the 48th Regiment of the Virginia Volunteers, R. T. W. Duke took an active role in the Civil War. In 1864, he resigned his commission because of a dispute with a superior officer, but re-enlisted thirty days later. He surrendered with his troops at Silas Creek in 1865, and returned to his law practice and position as commonwealth's attorney. From that time on, Duke was known as \"the Colonel,\" and in honor of his service in the recent war, the local camp for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was named for him.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn 1863 Duke bought Sunnyside, a 70-acre tract of land northeast of Charlottesville (on which the Law School is now located), and farmed this property until his death. He was chosen secretary/treasurer of the board of trustees of the Samuel Miller Fund, established in 1869. In 1870, Duke assumed the fifth district's Congressional seat for two terms as a member of the Conservative party. Lobbying for a strong South throughout his term, Duke actively opposed the 14th Amendment. R. T. W. Duke died after a lingering illness in the summer of 1898.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWilliam R. Duke, born in 1849, possessed his father's farming instincts and commitment to political involvement. Together they farmed and resided at Sunnyside, whose ownership William shared with his brother Tom after their father's death. Although William studied law at Virginia, and in 1883 joined his father's law practice, he devoted more energy to farming and such groups as the Virginia Cattlemen's Association. In 1897 he was elected delegate to the Virginia General Assembly. Like his father, William was also involved in local affairs, serving, for example, as clerk of the Miller Fund board of trustees for many years. William died in 1929 and was survived by his sons, William (Billy) and Camman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince he was born in 1853, Richard Thomas Walker Duke Jr. (Tom) witnessed the Civil War during his impressionable boyhood years and later wrote about those experiences. A gifted writer and student of languages, Tom studied classics, French, German, and English literature when he entered the University of Virginia in 1870. He was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Prize for the best essay in 1872, and then turned his attention to the study of law in 1873-74. It is likely that he later read law for a time in his father's office before passing the bar. Although the practice of law became his career, Duke wrote prose and poetry the rest of his life, and was published in the New York Herald and such magazines as Century, Lippincott's, and Illustrated American.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThroughout his long career, Tom was active in town, University, and state affairs. Among the organizations in which he held office were the Masons, Zeta Psi fraternity, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Miller Board, the UVA Alumni Association, and the state Democratic Committee. He served from 1886 to 1901 as judge of the Corporation Court (now called the Circuit Court), as commonwealth's attorney from 1916 to 1920, and as a member of the Committee to Revise the Virginia Code in 1908. In addition, he sat on the boards of a variety of corporations, including the Charlottesville Ice Company, the First National Bank, and a number of Kentucky and West Virginia coal development companies in which his family had invested. From 1907 to 1910, Tom edited the Virginia Law Journal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTom Duke married Edith Ridgeway Slaughter in 1884, and they produced six children, of whom five grew to maturity: Mary, R. T. W. III (Walker), John Flavel Slaughter (Jack), William Eskridge, and Helen Risdon. He built a spacious home for his family at 616 Park Street. A frequent traveller because of his practice, Duke also travelled for pleasure. As the children grew up, Edith often accompanied him to New York or Washington to shop, visit friends and attend plays, or she took journeys alone to visit children and other relatives. All the Duke children, as they reached their teens, attended boarding school, and all received at least some college education. Edith Duke died suddenly in 1921, and two years later, Tom married Maymee Richardson Slaughter, his wife's sister-in-law from Lynchburg. In March of 1926 Tom died at the age of 76.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWalker, after a few years in the Navy, joined the Army and became a career officer. Jack served in the Army during World War I, and then began a career in business. In 1917, Eskridge took a law degree at Virginia and joined his father's practice. He was plagued by ill-health throughout his career, and soon after their father's death, his sister Mary, a former social worker, began assisting in the law office. Helen, a librarian, worked in New York and Norfolk for a year or so before moving back to the family home. Eskridge and his wife, Lucy Lee, had three children, of whom two, William Eskridge Jr. (Bill) and Lucy Marshall, grew to adulthood. Jack died in 1933; Eskridge, in 1959; Walker, in 1960; Mary, in 1966; and Helen, in 1984.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Charlottesville law practice established by R. T. W. Duke in 1850 remained in the family for two succeeding generations. After studying law with John B. Minor at the University of Virginia, Duke practiced alone until 1858, when he built his office at 20 Court House Square and took James D. Jones as a partner. Another lawyer, Louis G. Hanckel, joined the firm in the early seventies and handled insurance business. When Tom finished his legal studies in 1874, he assisted his father, whose partner by then was Stephen V. Southall. In the 1880's the firm was called Duke \u0026amp; Duke, William having joined his father shortly before Tom became judge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe early work of the firm was limited to real estate, debt collection, and probate work, with an occasional criminal case. In addition, there was ample time for all three lawyers to pursue their assorted outside interests. At the office each man wrote his own letters, Tom switching to a Remington typewriter in 1889, before the days when they could hire a stenographer. The Dukes handled property rentals for some of their clients, the wealthiest and best known of whom was Jefferson Levy, owner of Monticello, the Opera House, and a great deal of other property in town.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWith the combination of \"the Colonel's\" death, the social and economic changes in town around the turn of the century, and the energetic leadership of Tom, the workload of the practice increased and became more diverse. Loan and bond operations were added to the civil and criminal work and property management. Around 1917, Eskridge and Clarence E. Gentry joined the firm, now called Duke, Duke and Gentry. The law office was torn down in 1922, and the firm moved to a building shared with other lawyers at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson Streets. The practice flourished, and the Dukes often hired Virginia law students or graduates as clerks or associates, including Elizabeth Tompkins (the first female graduate of the Law School), Bernard Chamberlain, Anna Dinwiddie, and John Yancy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIt has not been determined whether the Dukes sold insurance after Hanckel left, but some time after Eskridge joined the firm in the late teens, the Insurance Agency was established. The title was changed to the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville in 1923, when W. F. Carter Jr. as agent. After Carter misappropriated funds, he was relieved of his job, the agency was incorporated, and the Dukes' interest in the business was eventually bought out by William B. Murphy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEskridge carried on the law practice with the assistance of Mary and an occasional associate. In 1937, he wrote that his firm \"is regional and local counsel for a number of insurance companies, Virginia counsel for the Pike Coal Company, and does a general legal business, specializing in insurance, real estate, corporation and probate law, also maintains a collection department.\" With his failing health in the late forties, the practice dwindled until 1955, when Duke and Duke closed a little over a hundred years after it began.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Biographical / Historical"],"bioghist_tesim":["Richard Thomas Walker Duke, son of Richard and Maria Walker Duke, was born 6 June 1822 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he spent his childhood. After attending private schools, he entered Virginia Military Institute and finished second in the class of 1845. Upon graduating he taught school in Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), but returned to Charlottesville when his father died in 1849, and began studying law at the University. In 1850, he started his own law practice, and over the next ten years built a law office, was chosen one of Charlottesville's first aldermen, served briefly as mayor, and became commonwealth's attorney. He married Elizabeth Scott Eskridge of Staunton, and they had two sons, William and R. T. W. Jr. (Tom), and a daughter, Mary, all of whom lived to adulthood; two other children died in childhood.","As colonel of the 48th Regiment of the Virginia Volunteers, R. T. W. Duke took an active role in the Civil War. In 1864, he resigned his commission because of a dispute with a superior officer, but re-enlisted thirty days later. He surrendered with his troops at Silas Creek in 1865, and returned to his law practice and position as commonwealth's attorney. From that time on, Duke was known as \"the Colonel,\" and in honor of his service in the recent war, the local camp for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was named for him.","In 1863 Duke bought Sunnyside, a 70-acre tract of land northeast of Charlottesville (on which the Law School is now located), and farmed this property until his death. He was chosen secretary/treasurer of the board of trustees of the Samuel Miller Fund, established in 1869. In 1870, Duke assumed the fifth district's Congressional seat for two terms as a member of the Conservative party. Lobbying for a strong South throughout his term, Duke actively opposed the 14th Amendment. R. T. W. Duke died after a lingering illness in the summer of 1898.","William R. Duke, born in 1849, possessed his father's farming instincts and commitment to political involvement. Together they farmed and resided at Sunnyside, whose ownership William shared with his brother Tom after their father's death. Although William studied law at Virginia, and in 1883 joined his father's law practice, he devoted more energy to farming and such groups as the Virginia Cattlemen's Association. In 1897 he was elected delegate to the Virginia General Assembly. Like his father, William was also involved in local affairs, serving, for example, as clerk of the Miller Fund board of trustees for many years. William died in 1929 and was survived by his sons, William (Billy) and Camman.","Since he was born in 1853, Richard Thomas Walker Duke Jr. (Tom) witnessed the Civil War during his impressionable boyhood years and later wrote about those experiences. A gifted writer and student of languages, Tom studied classics, French, German, and English literature when he entered the University of Virginia in 1870. He was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Prize for the best essay in 1872, and then turned his attention to the study of law in 1873-74. It is likely that he later read law for a time in his father's office before passing the bar. Although the practice of law became his career, Duke wrote prose and poetry the rest of his life, and was published in the New York Herald and such magazines as Century, Lippincott's, and Illustrated American.","Throughout his long career, Tom was active in town, University, and state affairs. Among the organizations in which he held office were the Masons, Zeta Psi fraternity, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Miller Board, the UVA Alumni Association, and the state Democratic Committee. He served from 1886 to 1901 as judge of the Corporation Court (now called the Circuit Court), as commonwealth's attorney from 1916 to 1920, and as a member of the Committee to Revise the Virginia Code in 1908. In addition, he sat on the boards of a variety of corporations, including the Charlottesville Ice Company, the First National Bank, and a number of Kentucky and West Virginia coal development companies in which his family had invested. From 1907 to 1910, Tom edited the Virginia Law Journal.","Tom Duke married Edith Ridgeway Slaughter in 1884, and they produced six children, of whom five grew to maturity: Mary, R. T. W. III (Walker), John Flavel Slaughter (Jack), William Eskridge, and Helen Risdon. He built a spacious home for his family at 616 Park Street. A frequent traveller because of his practice, Duke also travelled for pleasure. As the children grew up, Edith often accompanied him to New York or Washington to shop, visit friends and attend plays, or she took journeys alone to visit children and other relatives. All the Duke children, as they reached their teens, attended boarding school, and all received at least some college education. Edith Duke died suddenly in 1921, and two years later, Tom married Maymee Richardson Slaughter, his wife's sister-in-law from Lynchburg. In March of 1926 Tom died at the age of 76.","Walker, after a few years in the Navy, joined the Army and became a career officer. Jack served in the Army during World War I, and then began a career in business. In 1917, Eskridge took a law degree at Virginia and joined his father's practice. He was plagued by ill-health throughout his career, and soon after their father's death, his sister Mary, a former social worker, began assisting in the law office. Helen, a librarian, worked in New York and Norfolk for a year or so before moving back to the family home. Eskridge and his wife, Lucy Lee, had three children, of whom two, William Eskridge Jr. (Bill) and Lucy Marshall, grew to adulthood. Jack died in 1933; Eskridge, in 1959; Walker, in 1960; Mary, in 1966; and Helen, in 1984.","The Charlottesville law practice established by R. T. W. Duke in 1850 remained in the family for two succeeding generations. After studying law with John B. Minor at the University of Virginia, Duke practiced alone until 1858, when he built his office at 20 Court House Square and took James D. Jones as a partner. Another lawyer, Louis G. Hanckel, joined the firm in the early seventies and handled insurance business. When Tom finished his legal studies in 1874, he assisted his father, whose partner by then was Stephen V. Southall. In the 1880's the firm was called Duke \u0026 Duke, William having joined his father shortly before Tom became judge.","The early work of the firm was limited to real estate, debt collection, and probate work, with an occasional criminal case. In addition, there was ample time for all three lawyers to pursue their assorted outside interests. At the office each man wrote his own letters, Tom switching to a Remington typewriter in 1889, before the days when they could hire a stenographer. The Dukes handled property rentals for some of their clients, the wealthiest and best known of whom was Jefferson Levy, owner of Monticello, the Opera House, and a great deal of other property in town.","With the combination of \"the Colonel's\" death, the social and economic changes in town around the turn of the century, and the energetic leadership of Tom, the workload of the practice increased and became more diverse. Loan and bond operations were added to the civil and criminal work and property management. Around 1917, Eskridge and Clarence E. Gentry joined the firm, now called Duke, Duke and Gentry. The law office was torn down in 1922, and the firm moved to a building shared with other lawyers at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson Streets. The practice flourished, and the Dukes often hired Virginia law students or graduates as clerks or associates, including Elizabeth Tompkins (the first female graduate of the Law School), Bernard Chamberlain, Anna Dinwiddie, and John Yancy.","It has not been determined whether the Dukes sold insurance after Hanckel left, but some time after Eskridge joined the firm in the late teens, the Insurance Agency was established. The title was changed to the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville in 1923, when W. F. Carter Jr. as agent. After Carter misappropriated funds, he was relieved of his job, the agency was incorporated, and the Dukes' interest in the business was eventually bought out by William B. Murphy.","Eskridge carried on the law practice with the assistance of Mary and an occasional associate. In 1937, he wrote that his firm \"is regional and local counsel for a number of insurance companies, Virginia counsel for the Pike Coal Company, and does a general legal business, specializing in insurance, real estate, corporation and probate law, also maintains a collection department.\" With his failing health in the late forties, the practice dwindled until 1955, when Duke and Duke closed a little over a hundred years after it began."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Duke law firm papers include correspondence, case files, legal, insuarance, and financial records, as well as ledgers. The files provide extensive documentation of a small-town family practice. Since the insurance business and the Dukes's family business affairs were handled in the same office as the law practice, these files had remained with the legal files. The family correspondence found with these papers was transferred to Special Collections in Alderman Library. \u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Duke papers were transferred from the first Duke office to the second Duke office, finally to their third office on Park Street, where they apparently were shifted more than once. Things were unavoidably jumbled, but the order within the cartons, the types of file boxes and folders, and the dates made it possible to reconstruct the original filing arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThis collection is rich in source material for scholars of legal, social, or local history. The first area of research focuses on the changes in the character of this small-town law practice from the post-Civil War to the post-World War II periods. There are well-documented accounts in the shifts in the type of legal work the law firm handled, the daily office operations over the years, the economic vicissitudes of the practice, and the attitudes of three generations of lawyers. There is information on the political, economic, and social conditions of the Charlottesville area during the time span of the Dukes' law practice.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Contents"],"scopecontent_tesim":["The Duke law firm papers include correspondence, case files, legal, insuarance, and financial records, as well as ledgers. The files provide extensive documentation of a small-town family practice. Since the insurance business and the Dukes's family business affairs were handled in the same office as the law practice, these files had remained with the legal files. The family correspondence found with these papers was transferred to Special Collections in Alderman Library.","The Duke papers were transferred from the first Duke office to the second Duke office, finally to their third office on Park Street, where they apparently were shifted more than once. Things were unavoidably jumbled, but the order within the cartons, the types of file boxes and folders, and the dates made it possible to reconstruct the original filing arrangements.","This collection is rich in source material for scholars of legal, social, or local history. The first area of research focuses on the changes in the character of this small-town law practice from the post-Civil War to the post-World War II periods. There are well-documented accounts in the shifts in the type of legal work the law firm handled, the daily office operations over the years, the economic vicissitudes of the practice, and the attitudes of three generations of lawyers. There is information on the political, economic, and social conditions of the Charlottesville area during the time span of the Dukes' law practice."],"corpname_ssim":["Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections"],"famname_ssim":["Duke family"],"names_coll_ssim":["Duke family","Duke, William R., 1849-1929","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926"],"persname_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929"],"names_ssim":["Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections","Duke family","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929"],"language_ssim":["English"],"descrules_ssm":["Describing Archives: A Content Standard"],"total_component_count_is":1908,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-09-17T13:57:56.004Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c04_c30"}},{"id":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06_c48","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"Under the portico of the City Hall of Havana, Cuba, 1900/1950","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06_c48#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06_c48","ref_ssm":["viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06_c48"],"id":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06_c48","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","_root_":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06","parent_ssi":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06","parent_ssim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974","Series IX. Photographs, 1846/1966, bulk 1870/1960","Photographs of Havana, Cuba and its environs; General Fitzhugh Lee's Headquarters in Cuba; the U.S.S.Maine; and Hideyo Noguchi, 1898/1952"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09","viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06"],"title_filing_ssi":"Under the portico of the City Hall of Havana, Cuba","title_ssm":["Under the portico of the City Hall of Havana, Cuba"],"title_tesim":["Under the portico of the City Hall of Havana, Cuba"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Under the portico of the City Hall of Havana, Cuba, 1900/1950"],"text":["Under the portico of the City Hall of Havana, Cuba, 1900/1950","Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974","Series IX. Photographs, 1846/1966, bulk 1870/1960","Photographs of Havana, Cuba and its environs; General Fitzhugh Lee's Headquarters in Cuba; the U.S.S.Maine; and Hideyo Noguchi, 1898/1952","box 81","folder 54","Social history","photographs","English"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974","Series IX. Photographs, 1846/1966, bulk 1870/1960","Photographs of Havana, Cuba and its environs; General Fitzhugh Lee's Headquarters in Cuba; the U.S.S.Maine; and Hideyo Noguchi, 1898/1952"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974","Series IX. Photographs, 1846/1966, bulk 1870/1960","Photographs of Havana, Cuba and its environs; General Fitzhugh Lee's Headquarters in Cuba; the U.S.S.Maine; and Hideyo Noguchi, 1898/1952"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1900/1950"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["circa 1900-1950"],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[3],"sort_isi":8753,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974"],"extent_ssm":["1 page"],"extent_tesim":["1 page"],"containers_ssim":["box 81","folder 54"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["There are no restrictions on user access to any of the materials in the collection except where noted in the container list."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["Copyright restrictions may apply for some materials in the collection."],"access_subjects_ssim":["Social history","photographs"],"access_subjects_ssm":["Social history","photographs"],"language_ssim":["English"],"date_range_isim":[1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950],"_nest_path_":"/components#8/components#5/components#47","timestamp":"2026-09-17T13:58:02.897Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","_root_":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_7_resources_1710","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/oai/UVA/repositories_7_resources_1710.xml","aspace_url_ssi":"https://archives.lib.virginia.edu/ark:/59853/202324","title_ssm":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection"],"title_tesim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection"],"unitdate_ssm":["circa 1800-circa 1998","bulk 1863-1974"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["circa 1800-circa 1998"],"unitdate_bulk_ssim":["bulk 1863-1974"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974"],"text":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974","MS.1","Archival Resource Key","/repositories/7/resources/1710","Human Experimentation","Military Medicine","Physicians","Public health","Tropical medicine","Yellow Fever","There are no restrictions on user access to any of the materials in the collection except where noted in the container list.","The Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection is organized in 16 series:","I. Jesse W. Lazear\n      II. Henry Rose Carter\n      III. Walter Reed\n      IV. Philip Showalter Hench\n      V. Maps\n      VI. Alphabetical files\n      VII. Truby-Kean-Hench\n      VIII. Miscellany\n      IX. Photographs\n      X. Photographic negatives\n      XI. Reprints\n      XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions\n      XIII. Reed family additions\n      XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions\n      XV. Laura Wood\n      XVI. Edward Hook additions","The U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission (1900-1901) was a board of physicians that the U.S. government formed in order to determine how yellow fever was transmitted between hosts. Ultimately, the commission's experiments in Cuba proved that mosquitoes transmit yellow fever--a discovery that would spur successful campaigns to control and eradicate yellow fever throughout much of the globe.","When Major Walter Reed and Acting Assistant Surgeons James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse Lazear gathered on the porch of the Columbia Barracks Hospital in June of 1900, they became the fourth successive board of U.S. medical officers to grapple with the appalling plague that was yellow fever.","The persistence of this disease across the Cuban archipelago and its periodic re-emergence along the coastlines and great river drainages of the Americas was taking countless thousands of lives. Lack of precise knowledge as to its cause and transmission had augmented yellow fever's extraordinarily high mortality rate and had given rise to quarantine regulations which constituted substantial impediments to efficient regional trade. Endemic in the tropics, yellow fever imposed high humanitarian and economic costs upon the entire region. Specialists regarded Cuba as one of the principal foci of the disease, and the island consequently attracted considerable attention from the medical sciences.","In 1879, one year after a devastating epidemic swept up the Mississippi valley from New Orleans, Tulane University Professor Stanford E. Chaille led the first investigatory commission to Havana, Rio de Janeiro, and the West Indies. The Chaille Commission remained in Havana three months, and its members -- including George Miller Sternberg, who became Surgeon General of the Army, and Juan Guiteras, later Director of Public Health for Havana -- consulted with Cuban scientist Carlos J. Finlay. They concluded that the causal agent for yellow fever was possibly a living entity in the atmosphere, an assertion which set Finlay on the path to the mosquito theory he developed in 1881.","Louis Pasteur's foundational and highly successful work in modern immunology in 1880 and 1881 gave a renewed impetus to investigations aimed at discovering the \"yellow fever germ.\" Over the middle years of the 1880s several scientists advanced different theories, all readily refuted by bacteriological work Sternberg undertook in Brazil and Mexico in 1887 and again in Havana in 1888 and 1889. In 1897, Italian scientist Giuseppe Sanarelli argued thatBacillus icteroideswas the culprit, and the following year a third scientific team sailed to Cuba for additional tests. Eugene Wasdin and Henry D. Geddings appeared to confirm Sanarelli's assertion, though Sternberg, by then Surgeon General, remained skeptical.","Despite Wasdin and Geddings' insistence, theB. icteroidestheory garnered significant opposition. In fact, a few months before the third commission's report reached the public, Walter Reed and James Carroll -- Reed's assistant at the Columbian University (later George Washington University) bacteriology laboratories in Washington, D.C. -- published a thorough refutation of theicteroidesproposal: the bacteria was not a unique cause of yellow fever, but a variety of the hog cholera bacillus, \"a secondary invader in yellow fever,\" Reed determined, unrelated to its etiology. [1] Dispute continued, however, and when Sternberg organized the fourth investigatory board, he charged Reed and his associates to settle theB. icteroidesquestion once and for all, then to proceed with analysis of other blood cultures and intestinal flora from yellow fever cases.","Reed and Carroll had considerable experience in bacteriological analysis, and, Sternberg reasoned, might well be able to find the specific agent of the disease. Aristides Agramonte, a Cuban scientist who had worked in Reed's lab at the Columbian University in 1898, was also an accomplished bacteriologist; he had identifiedB. icteroidesin tissue samples from cases other than yellow fever, providing further evidence opposed to Sanarelli's thesis. Jesse Lazear, a scientist from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, had joined the Army Medical Corps to study tropical diseases at their point of origin; he received orders for Cuba in February 1900. Lazear impressed Reed with his abilities when the two men became acquainted in March. No doubt with Reed's advice, Sternberg assembled a crack team -- all experienced in scientific research, but each with interests as diverse as their temperaments. The mix of talent and personalities generated spectacular results.","What causes yellow fever? This simple, even obvious question had dictated yellow fever research for over two decades, and so it guided Reed in organizing the work of the commission.Bacillus icteroidesand other bacteriological sampling dominated their work for the first months. \"Reed and Carroll have been at that for a long time,\" Lazear wrote with some impatience to his wife on August 23, \". . . I would rather try to find the germ without bothering about Sanarelli.\" [2] Again and again, tests for the bacteria proved negative, and at the same time, perplexing cases of yellow fever were developing in the region. Agramonte and Reed investigated an epidemic at Pinar del Rio, 110 miles southwest of Havana; Lazear followed later to collect more specimens, and he also assessed the situation at Guanjay thirty miles southwest. To \"my very great surprise,\" Reed admitted, the specific circumstances of the appearance and development of these cases gave strong evidence against the widely-accepted notion that the excreta of patients spread the disease. The theory of fomites -- infection from contaminated clothing and bedding -- and indeed even infection from airborne particles seemed altogether untrue. \"At this stage of our investigation,\" Reed concluded, \". . . the time had arrived when the plan of our work should be radically changed.\" [3] The fundamental question underwent a subtle but critical transformation: from what causes yellow fever to what transmits it. A clear and accurate understanding of how the disease was spread would open a new avenue to its specific cause.","\"Personally, I feel that only can experimentation on human beings serve to clear the field for further effective work,\" Reed stated to Surgeon General Sternberg, who concurred. [4] Evidence gathering around them pointed strongly to an intermediate host, and the Commission resolved to test Carlos Finlay's mosquito theory -- then not generally accepted -- on human volunteers. Nine times from August 11 to August 25, 1900, mosquitoes landed on the arms of volunteers and proceeded to feed. Nine times the results were negative. On August 27, Lazear placed a mosquito on the doubting Dr. Carroll, and four days later on William J. Dean, a soldier designated XY in the \"Preliminary Note.\" [5] Both promptly developed yellow fever. Significantly, their mosquitoes had fed on cases within the initial three days of an attack and had been allowed to ripen for at least twelve days before the inoculations. Carroll vitiated the results of his experimental sickness by traveling off the post to Havana, a contaminated zone, even as Reed, ecstatic, wrote from Washington in a confidential letter: \"Did the Mosquito do it?\" [6] Dean's case seemed to prove it, since he claimed not to have left the garrison before becoming ill. Lazear also developed a case of yellow fever, almost certainly experimental in origin, though he never revealed the actual circumstances of his inoculation. His severe bout of fever took a fatal turn on September 25, 1900.","Nevertheless, these results could not have been more dramatic or convincing for the Commission. Reed quickly assembled a \"Preliminary Note,\" which he presented to the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association in Indianapolis, Indiana, October 23, 1900. After initial consultations in Cuba with General Leonard Wood, military governor of the island, and with Surgeon General Sternberg in Washington, he returned to Cuba with authorization and funding to design and carry forward a fully defensible series of experiments. His aim was confirmation of the mosquito theory and invalidation of the long-held belief in fomites.","On open terrain beyond the precincts of Columbia Barracks -- the American military base just west of Havana near the adjacent suburban towns of Quemados and Marianao (also called Quemados de Marianao) -- Reed established the quarantined experimental station. Camp Lazear, as the Commission dedicated it, took form in the rolling fields of the Finca San Jose, on the farm of Dr. Ignacio Rojas, who leased the land to the Americans. Here Reed designed two small wood-frame buildings, each 14 by 20 feet, for the experimental work, and nearby raised a group of seven tents for the accommodation and support of the volunteers. The buildings faced each other across a small swale, about 80 yards apart, and stood 75 yards from the tent encampment. Building Number One, called the Infected Clothing Building, was a single room tightly constructed to contain as much foul air as possible. A small stove kept the temperature and humidity at tropical levels, and carefully attached screening secured the pair of doorways in a vestibule against intrusion by mosquitoes. Wooden blinds on two small sealed windows shielded the room from direct sun. Building Number Two, the Infected Mosquito Building, contained a principal room, divided into two sections by a floor-to-ceiling wire mesh screen. A door direct to the exterior let into one section, while a vestibule with a solid exterior door and pair of successive screened doors opened to the other, so configured to keep infected mosquitoes inside that section alone. The spare furnishings in both sections -- cots with bedding -- were steam sterilized. Windows exposed the entire room to the clean, steady ocean breezes and to sunlight. Like the doorways, they were carefully screened. A secondary room attached to the building but not communicating with the experimental spaces sheltered the small, heated laboratory where the Commission members raised and stored the mosquitoes to be used.","These two experimental buildings presented alternate environments -- one conspicuously clean and well ventilated, the other filthy and fetid. Contemporary theories of disease held that yellow fever developed in unclean conditions, and consequently much time and money had been devoted to sanitation projects. Workers steamed clothing, burned sulphur in ships' holds, and thoroughly scrubbed surfaces with disinfectant. In cases of severe epidemic, entire buildings presumed to be infected were set afire along with their contents. Thus the extraordinary -- and intentional -- paradox of the Commission's experimental regime: Reed expected yellow fever to develop not in the unsanitary environment, but in the one thought to be most healthful.","Camp Lazear went into quarantine the day of its completion, November 20, 1900, with a command of four immune and nine non-immune individuals, all save one U.S. Army personnel. Soon a group of recent Spanish immigrants to Cuba augmented the non-immune numbers, bringing the resident total to about twenty. Reed strictly controlled access to the camp and ordered regular temperature recording for each volunteer to eliminate any unanticipated source of infection and to identify the onset of any case of yellow fever as early as possible. As a result, non-immunes were barred from returning should they leave the precinct, and two of the Spaniards who developed intermittent fevers shortly after arrival were immediately transferred with their baggage to Columbia Barracks Hospital. The immune members of the detachment oversaw medical treatments and drove the teams of mules that pulled supply wagons and the ambulance. Experimentation did not begin until each volunteer had passed the incubation period for yellow fever in perfect health.","Reed took as much care with the design of the experimental protocol as he had with the configuration of the camp and its buildings. Each evening, the occupants of the infected clothing building unpacked trunks and boxes of bed linens and blankets, nightshirts and other clothing recently worn and soiled by cases from the wards of Columbia Barracks Hospital and Las Animas Hospital in Havana. These they shook out and spread around the room to permeate the atmosphere. The stench was overpowering. Yellow fever causes severe internal hemorrhaging, and its unfortunate victims often suffer from black vomit and other bloody discharges. One routine delivery proved so putrid the volunteers \"retreated from the house,\" Reed stated. \"They pluckily returned, however, within a short time, and spent the night as usual.\" [7] In two succeeding trials the protocol became progressively more daring , as the volunteers then wore the clothing and slept on the mattresses used by yellow fever patients, and finally put towels on their bedding smeared with blood drawn from cases in the early stages of an attack. Each morning, the volunteers carefully repacked the rank, encrusted materials into boxes and emerged to an adjacent tent where they spent the day quarantined from the rest of the company. Three trials of twenty days each involved seven men altogether, lead by Robert P. Cooke, a physician in the Army Medical Corps. None developed yellow fever.","The Commission's mosquito experiments proceeded in four series. First, Reed sought to demonstrate that mosquitoes of the varietyCulex fasciata(later calledStegomyia fasciata, and later stillAedes aegypti) could in fact transmit yellow fever, as Carlos J. Finlay had argued and the initial experiments at Camp Columbia strongly suggested. Here the Commission members simply applied infected mosquitoes contained in test tubes or jars to the skin of the initial volunteers. Success in these tests raised a number of questions, each one addressed in the subsequent series:","How could a building become infected?\n      When does a mosquito develop the ability to transmit the disease?\n      Over what length of time can a mosquito retain this capacity to infect?","The second series consequently employed the specialized \"Infected Mosquito Building\" to indicate how a structure could be considered infected with yellow fever. This experiment required two groups of volunteers, one to be inoculated and another to serve as controls. \"Loaded\" mosquitoes, as the men called them, were released into the screened section of Building Two -- on the side with the protected vestibule entry. One or more non-immune men then entered the opposite section of the room through the direct exterior door, and lay down on bunks adjacent to the wire mesh screen in the center of the room. Now the young man to be inoculated walked through the vestibule into the mosquito side of the room and proceeded to lie on a bunk adjacent to the wire screen separating him from the controls. The inoculation volunteer remained in the building for about twenty minutes -- enough time to suffer several mosquito bites -- he then exited to a quarantine tent outside. The controls spent the remainder of the evening and night in the uninfected side of the room, and indeed returned to sleep in the room for as many as eighteen more nights. As Reed stated, absence of yellow fever in the controls showed \"that the essential factor in the infection of a building with yellow fever is the presence therein of [infected] mosquitoes,\" and nothing more. [8] The degree of sanitation, so long considered critical, was utterly irrelevant.","The third series of mosquito experiments confirmed what Henry Rose Carter, of the U.S. Public Health Service, called the \"period of extrinsic incubation,\" [9] the length of time required for secondary cases of yellow fever to develop after an initial intrusion of the disease into a locality. In this series, a single volunteer underwent three successive inoculations by the same mosquitoes, each group of inoculations interrupted by a period of time equal in length to the typical incubation period of the disease in humans, about five days. In this manner, the volunteer's illness could be specifically attributed to a single inoculation group. The use of the same mosquitoes and the same volunteer concurrently demonstrated that no peculiar personal immunity was at play, since logic dictates that a person susceptible to yellow fever on day 17 of a mosquito's contamination -- as happened in the experiment -- could not have been immune to yellow fever on day 11 or day 4. It was thus only the mosquito's capacity to infect which changed, and that occurred no less than 11 days after contamination.","The duration of time over which these \"fully ripened\" mosquitoes remained infective comprised the fourth series of experiments. For this series the Commission kept alive a group of infected mosquitoes for as long as possible, and proceeded to inoculate three volunteers -- on the 39th, 51st, and 57th day after contamination. Each developed yellow fever. A fourth volunteer declined to be bitten on day 65, and the last two mosquitoes of the group, \"deprived of further opportunity to feed on human blood\" [10] expired on day 69 and day 71, clear evidence that even a sparsely populated region may retain the potential for new infections more than two months after the first appearance of the disease.","Although it went unrecorded in the published papers, Reed organized a supplemental experiment to test another species of mosquito.Culex pungensfailed to transmit yellow fever to at least one volunteer and probably to a second. Reed's preliminary conclusions indicated thatCulex fasciatawas the only species capable of transmitting yellow fever. [11]","A last experimental regime involved subcutaneous injections of blood from positive cases of yellow fever to presumed non-immunes. Reed devised these tests to confirm the presence of the yellow fever agent in the blood of a victim during the first days of an attack, and, more importantly, to settle theBacillus icteroidesquestion. The same blood cultures which produced yellow fever in four volunteers also failed to grow anyB. icteroides, conclusively invalidating Sanarelli's claim.","Altogether, the mosquito inoculations and the blood injections produced fourteen cases of yellow fever. All made a full recovery.","Notwithstanding the decisive medical victory -- as Reed declared, \"aside from the antitoxin of Diptheria and Koch's discovery of the tubercle bacillus, it will be regarded as the most important piece of work, scientifically, during the 19th century\" [12] -- success at Camp Lazear unfolded in its own time. Initially, Reed observed, \"the results obtained at this station were not encouraging.\" [13] The first inoculations of four volunteers over a period of two weeks proved disconcertingly negative each time. Then, on December 5, 1900, private John R. Kissinger presented his arm to the mosquitoes, and late in the evening on December 8, suffered the first chills of \"a well-marked attack of yellow fever.\" [14] Three more men in rapid succession fell victim to the insects -- Spanish volunteers Antonio Benigno, Nicanor Fernandez, and Vicente Presedo. The force of the conclusions was evident to everyone:","\"It can readily be imagined,\" Reed empathetically and wryly described in his first presentation of the experiments, \"that the concurrence of 4 cases of yellow fever in our small command of 12 non-immunes within the space of 1 week, while giving rise to feelings of exultation in the hearts of the experimenters, in view of the vast importance attaching to these results, might inspire quite other sentiments in the bosoms of those who had previously consented to submit themselves to the mosquito's bite. In fact, several of our good-natured Spanish friends who had jokingly compared our mosquitoes to 'the little flies that buzzed harmlessly about their tables,' suddenly appeared to lose all interest in the progress of science, and, forgetting for the moment even their own personal aggrandizement, incontinently severed their connection with Camp Lazear. Personally, while lamenting to some extent their departure, I could not but feel that in placing themselves beyond our control they were exercising the soundest judgment.\"","\"In striking contrast,\" Reed continued, the anxiety of the fomites volunteers began to melt into relief. \"[T]he countenances of these men, which had before borne the serious aspect of those who were bravely facing an unseen foe, suddenly took on the glad expression of 'schoolboys let out for a holiday,' and from this time their contempt for 'fomites' could not find sufficient expression. Thus illustrating once more, gentlemen, the old adage that familiarity, even with fomites, may breed contempt.\" [15]","The question of human experimentation was indeed a serious one -- unavoidable, in actuality, as Reed had stated the previous summer to Surgeon General Sternberg. When the Commission first considered a trial of Finlay's mosquito theory, Reed, Carroll, and Lazear agreed to experiment on themselves. Agramonte, a native Cuban, had acquired immunity as a child. Doubtless Finlay's experience of many unsuccessful inoculations communicated that positive results would not be forthcoming rapidly, so before the first series of inoculations began under Lazear's direction at Columbia Barracks, Reed left Cuba for Washington, where he completed a monumental report on typhoid fever among the army corps -- left unfinished by the sudden death of co-author Edward O. Shakespeare. Carroll and Lazear both sickened while Reed was in Washington, and Lazear, young and strong, had no reason to anticipate that his case would be fatal. Reed was shocked at Lazear's death, and because of his own age -- 49, a decade and a half older than Lazear and a dozen years older than Carroll -- he resolved not to inoculate himself when he returned to Cuba on October 4, 1900. The point had already been amply demonstrated, and only a rigidly controlled experimental regime would establish the necessary proof. Carroll, however, remained embittered about this for the remainder of his life, though he evidently never communicated his objections directly to Reed.","That initial series of mosquito inoculations was probably accomplished without formal documentation of informed consent. Indeed, the experiments may also have been carried forward without the full knowledge of the commanding officer of Camp Columbia, and Reed consequently shielded the identity of Private William J. Dean, the second positive experimental case, behind the pseudonym \"XY\" in the \"Preliminary Note.\" No such potentially troublesome problems arose for the experimental series at Camp Lazear; Reed obtained prior support from all of the appropriate authorities in the military and the administration, even including the Spanish Consul to Cuba. With the advice of the Commission and others, he drafted what is now one of the oldest series of extant informed consent documents. The surviving examples are in Spanish with English translations, and were signed by volunteers Antonio Benigno and Vicente Presedo, and a third with the mark of Nicanor Fernandez, who was illiterate.","The documents take the form of a contract between individual volunteers and the Commission, represented by Reed. At least 25 years old, each volunteer explicitly consented to participate, and balanced the certainty of contracting yellow fever in the general population against the risks of developing an experimental case, followed by expert and timely medical care. The volunteers agreed to remain at Camp Lazear for the duration of the experiments, and as a reward for participation would receive $100 \"in American gold,\" with an additional hundred-dollar supplement for contracting yellow fever. These payments could be assigned to a survivor, and the volunteers agreed to forfeit any remuneration in cases of desertion.","For the American participants no consent documents appear to survive, though in contemporary letters Reed assured his correspondents that the Commission obtained written consent from all the volunteers. The record of expenses for Camp Lazear -- maintained by Reed's friend and colleague in the medical corps, Jefferson Randolph Kean -- indicates that the same schedule of payments for participation and sickness applied to the Americans as well. Volunteers who participated in the fomites tests and in addition the later series of blood injections and the single trial of an alternative species of mosquito also earned $100 each plus the $100 supplement if yellow fever developed. Two Americans declined these gratuities, as Kean termed them, Dr. Robert P. Cooke, of the fomites tests, and John J. Moran, who had recently received an honorable discharge from the service, and was the only American civilian to participate. His was the fourth case of yellow fever to develop from mosquito inoculation. Moran eventually settled in Cuba, where he managed the Havana offices of the Sun Oil Company, and late in life became a close friend of Philip S. Hench. Together the two men rediscovered the site of Camp Lazear in 1940 -- Building Number One still intact -- and successfully lobbied the Cuban government to memorialize there the work of Finlay and the American Commission in the conquest of yellow fever.","Reed informally commemorated his own experiences at Camp Lazear by commissioning a group photograph, evidently taken there shortly before he left Cuba in February 1901. A more important event occurred on the sixth of that month when Reed presented the results of the Camp Lazear yellow fever experiments to a great ovation at the Pan-American Medical Congress in Havana. Three days later he set sail for the United States, and once landed, drafted the Congress paper asThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- An Additional Note, published immediately in theJournal of the American Medical Association. [16]","Though his correspondence intimates a great appreciation for Cuba, Reed never returned to the warm, sunny shores of the island freed of a dreadful plague. Carroll stayed behind at Camp Lazear through February to complete the last experimental series officially bearing the imprimatur of the Yellow Fever Commission, and returned to Washington soon after March first. [17] The Medical Corps retained the lease on Camp Lazear against the possibility of continuing experiments another season, and Carroll, in fact, returned to Havana in August 1901 for a final experimental series, though he did not make use of Camp Lazear. This work involved at least three volunteers at Las Animas Hospital, Havana, who submitted to blood injections. Carroll's assignment aimed at a greater understanding of the yellow fever agent, and he proved that blood drawn from active cases of yellow fever remained virulent even after passing through fine bacteria filters. In addition, by heating contaminated blood which had previously caused cases of yellow fever, Carroll rendered it non-infective -- thereby establishing that this filterable entity, though sub-microscopic, was demonstrably present in the bloodstream. Carroll wrapped up the series in October and returned home to stay. [18] In Cuba, J. Randolph Kean made the last rental payments to Signore Rojas on October 9, 1901, and Camp Lazear, for more than a generation, slipped out of the realm of memory.","Sources:","[1] Walter Reed and James Carroll,Bacillus Icteroides and Bacillus Cholerae Suis -- A Preliminary Note,Medical News(29 April 1899), reprinted in: United States Senate Document No. 822,Yellow Fever, A Compilation of Various Publications(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), p. 55.\n      [2] Letter from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 23 August 1900, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 00341001.\n      [3] Walter Reed, \"The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches,\" in United States Senate Document No. 822,Yellow Fever A Compilation of Various Publications(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), p. 94.\n      [4] Letter from Walter Reed to George M. Sternberg, 24 July 1900, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 02064001.\n      [5] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, Jesse W. Lazear,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note,Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health AssociationIndianapolis, Indiana, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 October 1900.\n      [6] Letter from Walter Reed to James Carroll, 7 September 1900, Edward Hook Additions to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection: James Carroll Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 15312004. The originals of these letters remain in a private collection.\n      [7] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- An Additional Note,Journal of the American Medical Association36 (16 February 1901): 431-440, reprinted in: Senate Document No. 822, p. 84.\n      [8] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 99.\n      [9] Henry Rose Carter,A Note on the Spread of Yellow Fever in Houses, Extrinsic Incubation,Medical Record59 (15 June 1901) 24: 937.\n      [10] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 101.\n      [11]Culex fasciatawas reclassified shortly after the experiments asStegomyiaand later becameAedes aegypti.\n      [12] Letter to from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence Reed, 9 December 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 02231001.\n      [13] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 97.\n      [14] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 98.\n      [15] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 99.\n      [16] Please see note [7].\n      [17] The Commission reported these concluding experiments in: Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte,Experimental Yellow Fever,American MedicineII (6 July 1901) 1: 15-23.\n      [18] Walter Reed, James Carroll,The Etiology of Yellow Fever (A Supplemental Note),American MedicineIII (22 February 1902) 8: 301-305.","Walter Reed (September 13, 1851 - November 22, 1902) was a U.S. Army physician who led the army's Yellow Fever Commission 1900 and 1901. Experiments conducted by the commission confirmed a theory that yellow fever is transmitted by mosquitoes--a discovery that led to the control and eradication of this disease across much of the globe. Reed would receive much of the credit for the work of the commission because of his role as its leader, and, long after his death in 1902, he would be widely celebrated as a heroic figure in the fields of public health and medical research.","Reed spent his first days in a small house which served as the parsonage for a Methodist congregation in Gloucester County, Virginia, where his father was minister.  Lemuel Sutton Reed and Pharaba White Reed welcomed young Walter into the family on September 13, 1851;  he was the youngest of their five children.  The Reeds moved to other Virginia parishes during Walter's childhood, and just after the close of the Civil War, transferred to the town of Charlottesville.  That move in 1866 placed Walter in the orbit of the University of Virginia, which he entered a year later at age sixteen under the care of his older brother Christopher, also a student at the University.  Reed attended two year-long sessions, the second devoted entirely to the medical curriculum, and he completed an M.D. degree on July 1, 1869, as one of the youngest students to graduate in the history of the medical school.","At that time the School of Medicine at the University offered little opportunity for direct clinical experience, so Reed subsequently enrolled at the Bellevue Hospital Medical College, in Manhattan, New York.  There he obtained a second M.D. degree in 1870.  Reed interned at a number of hospitals in the New York metropolitan area, including the Infants' Hospital on Randall's Island and the Brooklyn City Hospital.  In 1873, he assumed the position of assistant sanitary officer for the Brooklyn Board of Health.  The large and diverse population of New York, with its many immigrant communities and dense, tenement housing, provided countless medical cases to treat and study;  these served to expose Reed to the vital importance of public health, and developed in him a lifelong interest in the field.  Yet the frenetic life of the great cities began to pall after a few years: \"Here the ever bustling day is crowded into the busy night; nor can we draw the line of separation between the two,\"[1] he wrote to Emilie Lawrence, of Murfreesboro, North Carolina, later to become Mrs. Walter Reed.  Their courtship letters reveal much of his maturing character, interests, and philosophy of life.  Increasing responsibilities with the Board of Health precluded opening a private practice, and Reed's youth proved a barrier in a culture given to offering respect more to the appearance of maturity than to its actual demonstration. Reed consequently resolved to join the Army Medical Corps, both for the professional opportunities it offered immediately and for the modest financial security it could provide to a young man without independent means.  He passed the qualifying examinations in January 1875 and proceeded to his first assignment at the military base on Willet's Point, New York Harbor.","Reed remained in the Medical Corps for the rest of his life, spending many years of the '70s, '80s, and early '90s at difficult postings in the American West.  The first of these -- to the Arizona Territory -- began in the late spring of 1876, and indeed hurried along his wedding to Emilie Lawrence, on April 25, shortly before his departure.  She joined him the following November, and bore two children at frontier posts, a son Walter Lawrence and a daughter Emilie, called Blossom.","Reed's other western assignments included forts in Nebraska, Dakota Territory, and Minnesota, with two eastern interludes at Baltimore, Maryland and another at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama.  During the second of these tours in Baltimore -- over the 1890-1891 academic year -- Reed completed advanced coursework in pathology and bacteriology in the Johns Hopkins University Hospital Pathology Laboratory.  When he returned from his last western appointment in 1893, Reed joined the faculty of the Army Medical School in Washington, D.C., where he held the professorship of Bacteriology and Clinical Microscopy.  He also became curator of the Army Medical Museum and joined the faculty of the Columbian University in Washington (later the George Washington University).  In addition, Reed maintained close ties with professor William Welch and other leading lights in the scientific community he had come to know at Hopkins a few years earlier.","Beyond his teaching responsibilities for the Army and the Columbian University programs, Reed actively pursued medical research projects.  A bibliography of his publications finds entries from 1892 to the year of his untimely death a decade later, and the subjects he investigated range from erysipelas to cholera, typhoid, malaria, and yellow fever, among others.[2]   In 1896, a research trip to investigate an outbreak of smallpox took him to Key West, and there he developed a close friendship with Jefferson Randolph Kean, a fellow Virginian and colleague in the Medical Corps ten years his junior.  When Reed traveled to Cuba in 1899 to study typhoid in the army encampments of the U.S. forces, Kean was already there, and Kean was still in Cuba when Reed returned as the head of the Army board charged by Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg to examine tropical diseases including yellow fever.  Kean and his first wife Louise were great supporters of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work, and Kean in fact served as quartermaster for the famous series of experiments at Camp Lazear.  After the dramatic and conclusive success of those experiments, Kean actively -- though unsuccessfully -- promoted Reed's candidacy for Surgeon General.","Reed continued to speak and publish on yellow fever after his return from Cuba in 1901, receiving honorary degrees from Harvard and the University of Michigan in recognition of his seminal work.  In November 1902, Reed developed what had been for him recurring gastro-intestinal trouble.  This time, however, his appendix ruptured, and surgery came too late to save him from the peritonitis which developed.  He died on November 23, 1902, almost two years to the day from the opening of Camp Lazear and the stunning experimental victory there.  Kean remained a champion of his deceased friend's role in the conquest of yellow fever.  He organized the Walter Reed Memorial Association, to provide support for Reed's family and to build a suitable memorial, and was instrumental in lobbying the United States Congress to establish the Yellow Fever Roll of Honor.  In 1929, Congress mandated the annual publication of the Roll in theArmy Register, and struck a series Congressional Gold Medals saluting the Commission members and the young Americans who bravely suffered experimental yellow fever a generation before.","Sources:","[1] Letter from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence, 18 July 1874, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 01605001.\n      [2] The bibliography of Reed's scientific papers may be found in: Howard Atwood Kelly,Walter Reed and Yellow Fever(New York: McClure, Phillips and Co., 1906), pp. 281-283. Kelly's complete biography of Reed is contained on this Web site.","Jesse William Lazear (May 2, 1866 - September 26, 1900) was a physician who was a member of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission in 1900. Lazear's death from yellow fever at the outset of the commission's work in Cuba would lead to his elevation as a martyr for medical science in the eyes of many during the twentieth century.","\"I rather think I am on the track of the real germ,\" Jesse W. Lazear wrote his wife from Cuba on September 8, 1900.[1] Seventeen days later, the fulminating case of yellow fever Lazear had contracted just over a week after writing Mabel H. Lazear suddenly ended the young scientist's life. He was 34 years old. Unlike so many other yellow fever fatalities, however, this one would lead to a direct and highly successful assault on the disease itself. Yellow fever's ascendancy, endemic in Cuba, was about to be undermined.","Lazear had reported to Camp Columbia, Cuba in February 1900 for duty as an acting assistant surgeon with the U. S. Army Corps stationed on the island. Here he undertook bacteriological study of tropical diseases, particularly malaria and yellow fever, and in May he was named to the Army board charged with \"pursuing scientific investigations with reference to the infectious diseases prevalent on the island of Cuba.\"[2]","These orders placed him officially in the company of Walter Reed, James Carroll, and Aristides Agramonte -- the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission -- though Lazear had already met Reed the preceding March on a project to evaluate the efficacy of electrozone, a disinfectant made from seawater collected off the Cuban coast. While Reed was in Cuba that March, Lazear discussed with him the recent discovery of British scientist Sir Ronald Ross concerning the mosquito vector for malaria. At Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where he was first a medical resident and later in charge of the clinical laboratory, Lazear had followed Ross's accomplishments with great interest, and pursued field work and experimentation on theAnophelesmosquito with fellow Hopkins scientist William S. Thayer. Lazear was thus the only member of the Commission who had experience with mosquito work, and was consequently the most open to the possible verity of Cuban scientist Carlos Juan Finlay's theory of mosquito transmission for yellow fever.","The record is apparently silent as to when Lazear first visited Finlay. Certainly by late June Lazear was beginning to grow mosquito larvae acquired from Finlay's laboratory, the first specimens brought to him by Henry Rose Carter, of the United States Public Health Service.[3] Not long after arriving in Cuba Lazear met Carter, whose own observations on yellow fever strongly suggested an intermediate host in the spread of the disease. However, Army Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg, who organized the Yellow Fever Commission, first charged the board members to investigate the relationship ofBacillus icteroidesto yellow fever -- proposed by the Italian Scientist Giuseppe Sanarelli as the actual cause of the disease. \"Dr. Reed had been in the old discussion over Sanarelli's bacillus and he still works on that subject,\" Lazear wrote his wife in July, \"I am not all interested in it but want to do work which may lead to the discovery of the real organism.\"[4] Soon he would have the opportunity. The relatively quick failure of the Bacillus icteroides inquiry opened the door to what became the ground-breaking mosquito work, and Lazear was well placed to begin.","The project started in earnest on August 1, 1900. In a small pocket notebook Lazear noted the preparatory work of raising and infecting mosquitoes, and subsequently recorded the series of eleven experimental inoculations made from the 11th to the 31st of August, the last two producing cases of full-blown yellow fever. These two positive cases developed from mosquitoes allowed to ripen over a period of 12 days, and this was Lazear's crucial discovery. The epidemiological pattern was thus entirely consistent with Carter's observations of a delay between the primary and secondary outbreaks of yellow fever in an epidemic, and, in addition, explained why Finlay's experiments had been largely unsuccessful -- he had not waited long enough before inoculating his subjects.","Although Lazear never directly admitted to experimenting on himself, when Reed reviewed Lazear's sketchy notations he evidently found entries strongly suggesting Lazear's case was not accidental, as officially reported. Unfortunately, the little notebook so crucial to the preparation of the Commission's famous initial paper,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note[5], vanished from Reed's Washington office after his own untimely death in 1902. Still, Lazear's invaluable contribution to the Commission's victory was widely recognized and elicited tributes from many quarters: \"He was a splendid, brave fellow,\" Reed said of his young colleague, \" and I lament his loss more than words can tell; but his death was not in vain- His name will live in the history of those who have benefited humanity.\" [6] \"His death was a sacrifice to scientific research of the highest character,\" stated General Leonard Wood, military Governor of Cuba.[7] \"Your husband was a martyr in the noblest of causes,\" Dr. L. O. Howard wrote to Mabel Lazear, \"and I am proud to have known him. . . . His work contributed towards one of the greatest discoveries of the century, the results of which will be of invaluable benefit to mankind.\"[8] And so they were. Though Lazear's one-year-old son and newborn daughter never knew their father, they grew up in a world liberated -- almost in its entirety -- from the disease that killed him.","[1] Letter fragment from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 8 September 1900, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 00344001.","Sources:","[2] Military Orders for Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse W. Lazear, 24 May 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number 02019001.\n      [3] \"Conversation between Drs. Carter, Thayer, and Parker,\" 1924, Henry Rose Carter Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, Box 1.\n      [4] Letter fragment from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 15 July 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00334001.\n      [5] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, Jesse W. Lazear,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note, Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association Indianapolis, Indiana, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 October 1900.\n      [6] Letter from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence Reed, 6 October 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 02135001.\n      [7] Letter from Leonard Wood to the Adjutant-General, United States Army, November 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00375002.\n      [8] Letter from Leland Ossian Howard to Mabel Houston Lazear, 7 February 1901, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00388001.","Henry Rose Carter (August 25, 1852 - September 14, 1925) was a prominent physician in the U.S. Public Health Service who was a leading authority in the transmission and control of tropical diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria. During his long career as a sanitarian, Carter undertook campaigns to investigate and control the spread of tropical diseases in Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone, the Southeastern United States, and Peru.","Like Walter Reed and Jefferson Randolph Kean, Henry Rose Carter was a native Virginian and a graduate of the University of Virginia. Carter obtained a civil engineering degree from Virginia in 1873 and also undertook post-graduate work in mathematics and applied chemistry the next year. Subsequently, however, Carter's interests turned towards medicine, and he completed a medical degree at the University of Maryland in 1879. The same year Assistant Surgeon Carter joined the Marine Hospital Service -- later the United States Public Health Service -- and the young surgeon rose steadily through the ranks, ultimately attaining the position of Assistant Surgeon General in 1915.","Carter's initial assignments with the Hospital Service placed him at the center of the yellow fever maelstrom. In 1879 he was detailed to Memphis and other Southern cities, then in the throes of a second year of devastating epidemics. Here began, as his colleague T. H. D. Griffitts observed, Carter's \"lifelong interest in the epidemiology and control of yellow fever.\"[1] After several years of clinical practice in various Marine hospitals, Carter resumed a direct confrontation with yellow fever when his orders for duty with the Gulf Coast Maritime Quarantine assigned him to Ship Island, Mississippi, in 1888. Here and at subsequent quarantine station postings around the Gulf, he quietly championed a thorough review and rationalization of quarantine policies, with a view toward establishing uniform regulation, more thorough disinfection of vessels, and minimized interference with naval commerce. Crucial to the success of these activities was Carter's attention to the incubation period of yellow fever, which his on-site observations indicated to vary between 5 and 7 days. At the time the official literature stated with far less precision a variance of between 1 and 14 days; Carter's work consequently greatly increased the efficiency and effectiveness of quarantine operations.","Nevertheless, yellow fever continued to menace the temperate coastline of the United States, and Carter ably directed the Health Service's epidemiological control efforts in numerous threatened regions. In conjunction with this sanitary work for the 1898 season, Carter made detailed notes on the development of yellow fever at Orwood and Taylor, Mississippi. The isolation of these communities enabled him to identify more reliably the phenomenon of a delay between the initial cases of yellow fever in a locality and the subsequent appearance of secondary infection -- a delay two to four times longer than the incubation period of the disease in an infected person. Carter called this interval between the primary and secondary cases \"the period of extrinsic incubation,\" and he defined its \"usual limits . . . [as ranging] from ten to seventeen days.\"[2]","Before he was able to publish his conclusions, Carter took the helm of the quarantine service in war-time Cuba. There, in 1900, he met U. S. Army Yellow Fever Commission member Jesse Lazear. Carter had finally arranged for his paper's publication that year in theNew Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, and gave a draft to Lazear. \"If these dates are correct,\" Carter later recalled Lazear saying, \"it spells a living host.\"[3] The theory of mosquito transmission long advanced by Cuban scientist Carlos J. Finlay began to seem more likely. And indeed it was. The Commission's experiments in 1900-1901 irrefutably proved the mosquito vector and established the extrinsic incubation period at twelve days. Shortly after these successes Reed saluted Carter, \"I know of no one more competent to pass judgment on all that pertains to the subject of yellow fever. You must not forget that your own work in Mississippi did more to impress me with the importance of an intermediate host than everything else put to-gether.\"[4]","Carter's long and distinguished sanitary career took him to the Panama Canal Zone in 1904, where he served as Chief Quarantine Officer and Chief of Hospitals for five years. He undertook detailed investigations and control measures of malaria in North Carolina and elsewhere in the South, and became a founder of the National Malaria Committee. With the support of the Rockefeller Foundation International Health Board, he undertook additional investigation and control measures for yellow fever in Central and South America. His expertise recommended him to the Peruvian government, which named Carter Sanitary Advisor in 1920-1921. Health problems at the end of his life compelled Carter to withdraw from active fieldwork, though he remained a highly valued consultant to the Health Board and a much-beloved and respected teacher for a new generation of sanitarians. Carter closed his career researching and writing the manuscript that his daughter Laura Armistead Carter edited and published posthumously in 1931:Yellow Fever: An Epidemiological and Historical Study of its Place of Origin.[5]","Sources:","[1] T. H. D. Griffitts,Henry Rose Carter: The Scientist and the Man,Southern Medical Journal32 (August 1939) 8: 842.\n      [2] Henry Rose Carter,A Note on the Spread of Yellow Fever in Houses, Extrinsic Incubation,Medical Record59 (15 June 1901) 24: 937.\n      [3] \"Conversation between Drs. Carter, Thayer, and Parker,\" 1924, Henry Rose Carter Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, Box 1.\n      [4] Letter from Walter Reed to Henry Rose Carter, 26 February 1901, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 02447001.\n      [5] Carter, Henry Rose.Yellow Fever: An Epidemiological and Historical Study of its Place of Origin.Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1931.","Jefferson Randolph Kean (June 27, 1860 - September 4, 1950) was a U.S. Army physician who was a leading authority in sanitation, public health, and tropical diseases. Later in his career, Kean would become widely recognized for his role in organizing and administering medical services for the U.S. armed forces during World War I.","\"He possessed one of the keenest, most scholarly minds I've ever encountered,\" recalled Nobel Prize winner Philip S. Hench of Jefferson Randolph Kean. [1] Kean and Hench shared an abiding interest in the work of the United States Army Yellow Fever Commission -- Kean, as a contemporary and supporter, and Hench, as a scholar and scientist intent on accurate historical documentation. On the advice of yellow fever experiment volunteer John J. Moran, Hench first wrote Kean in 1939. From that initial contact developed a close friendship which would last for the remainder of their lives. Kean entrusted Hench not only with numerous period documents, including original letters, accounts, fever charts, and other items, but also with the freely-given counsel and insight of a trusted friend.","Like Walter Reed and Henry Rose Carter before him, Jefferson Randolph Kean was an alumnus of the University of Virginia, completing the medical program there in 1883. Kean joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1884, and after forty years in the service, retired with the rank of Colonel. Congress awarded him a promotion to Brigadier General, retired, in 1930. The early years of Kean's career passed in medical postings in the American West, and no doubt offered him experiences similar to those of Walter Reed, whom he met not on the frontier, but in Florida in 1896. Kean became an expert in tropical diseases and sanitation during his five-year assignment in the Florida tropics, an expertise which served him well over two terms of service later in Cuba. During the Spanish-American War and subsequent U. S. occupation of Cuba, Kean was Chief Surgeon for the Department of Havana, then Superintendent of the Department of Charities -- from 1898 to 1902. After a four-year interlude as an assistant to the Surgeon General in Washington, D.C., Kean again returned to Cuba as an advisor to the Department of Sanitation from 1906-1909.","Kean himself stated: \"Reed and I were good friends before the Yellow Fever Board came to Cuba in June 1900, and [Reed] located himself at Marianao, 8 miles S. W. of Havana,\" to be within the medical and administrative jurisdiction overseen by Kean. [2] The Chief Surgeon did indeed offer significant assistance, and was an early convert to Carlos Finlay's mosquito theory of transmission, which the Yellow Fever Board's experiments ultimately proved true in the late autumn and winter of 1900-1901. As early as October 13, 1900 -- after the Board's preliminary work, but before the final convincing demonstrations -- Kean issued \"Circular No. 8,\" concerning the latest scholarship on the mosquito vector for disease. [3] The circular contained a set of instructions for the entire command on mosquito eradication. Kean subsequently served as quartermaster and financial administrator for the famous series of yellow fever experiments at Camp Lazear and, for the rest of his life, Kean remained a strong proponent of the Commission's conclusions. He worked tirelessly not only to apply them in the field, but also to accord proper public recognition to the Commission's work.","In addition to his career as a sanitarian, Kean organized the department of military relief of the American Red Cross, and during World War One served as Chief of the U. S. Ambulance Service with the French Army and Deputy Chief Surgeon of the American forces. France named him an Officier de la Légion d'Honneur in recognition for these services. Cuban authorities as well offered Kean recognition with the grand cross of the Order of Merit Carlos J. Finlay, and he received both a Distinguished Service Medal from the United States government and the Gorgas Medal from the Association of Military Surgeons. For a decade after his retirement from active duty, Kean edited this last organization's medical journal,The Military Surgeon, and served on the Surgeon General's editorial board for the multi-volume history of the medical department in World War One. A great-grandson of Thomas Jefferson, Kean also took a seat with the government commission established to build the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. He held charter membership in the Walter Reed Memorial Association, and remained active in its affairs until his death in 1950.","Sources:","[1] Telegram from Philip Showalter Hench and Mary Hench to Cornelia Knox Kean, September 5, 1950, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 06501173.\n      [2] Letter from Jefferson Randolph Kean to Philip Showalter Hench, October 31, 1939, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 06282022.\n      [3] Military Orders to Commanding Officers, October 15, 1900, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 02140001.","Philip Showalter Hench (February 28, 1896 - March 30, 1965) was a U.S. physician who in 1950 was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for his role in the discovery of the hormone cortisone. In addition to his medical research, Hench spent almost three decades of his life studying the history of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and became a leading authority in the subject.","Philip Showalter Hench was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the son of Jacob Bixler Hench and Clara Showalter. After attending local schools, Hench entered Lafayette College and graduated from the school 1916 with a Bachelor of Arts. Hench completed his medical degree at the University of Pittsburgh in 1920, and subsequently entered a residency program at St. Francis Hospital, Pittsburgh. His association with the Mayo Clinic began in 1921 as a fellow at the institution. Two years later he would become an assistant at the clinic, and then, in 1926, he would be made the head of its Department of Rheumatic Diseases After pursuing post-graduate study in Germany in 1928-1929, Hench obtained a Masters of Science in Internal Medicine at the University of Minnesota in 1931, and a Doctor of Science degree from Lafayette College in 1940. Hench remained for the duration of his career at the Mayo Clinic, where his life-long passion for meticulous research and analysis brought him the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1950, which he shared with Edward C. Kendall and Tadeus Reichstein, for the discovery of cortisone.","The same persistence and determination present in his professional life is also evident in Hench's research on the U. S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's famous experiments. \"As a physician particularly interested in medical history,\" he stated to experiment volunteer John J. Moran in 1937, \"I have been long interested in the story of the yellow fever work in John J. Moran, Ralph C. Hutchison, Havana.\" [1] So began a remarkable odyssey. At the request of his friend Ralph Cooper Hutchison, then president of Washington and Jefferson College, Hench had written Moran to gather information for the dedication of the College's new chemistry building, named for Commission member and former Washington and Jefferson student Jesse W. Lazear. Hench also began a correspondence with another of the yellow fever experiment's original volunteers, John R. Kissinger. Moran's and Kissinger's recollections proved so intriguing that Hench initially offered to edit and publish them. However, in the course of his research Hench discovered that much general information on the topic was inaccurate. Conflicting assertions concerning the participants and unverified claims by medical and governmental authorities in the United States and Cuba -- often politically motivated -- clouded interpretation of the facts. \"May I suggest,\" Moran consequently urged in 1938, \"that a clearing up of the REED-FINLAY-CONQUEST-OF-YELLOW-FEVER, or an effort to do so, on your part, is a task far more pressing than publishing the Kissinger-Moran stories or memoirs.\" [2] Hench resolved to document every aspect of the \"Conquest of Yellow-Fever\" and to write a much needed accurate and comprehensive history.","For the next two decades, Hench tirelessly combed through public archive collections and personal papers in the United States and Cuba. He met and interviewed surviving participants of the experiments and others associated with the project, as well as family members of the Yellow Fever Commission. He sought out physicians and scientists who had worked with the principal players or who had applied the results in the campaign to eradicate yellow fever. He identified and photographed sites associated with the yellow fever story, and he successfully petitioned politicians in the United States and Cuba to commemorate the work. In the process, Hench became the trusted friend and advisor of many of these same individuals, and they, in turn, presented him with much of the surviving original material for safekeeping.","In short, Hench came to be the world's expert on the yellow fever story and the steward of thousands of original letters and documents. His premature death at age 69 found him still hoping to uncover important missing evidence, his book unwritten. Hench's widow Mary Kahler Hench gave his yellow fever collection to the University of Virginia, Walter Reed's alma mater, and this extensive personal archive forms the most detailed and accurate record available on the Conquest of Yellow Fever.","Sources:","[1] Letter from Philip S. Hench to John J. Moran, 6 July 1937, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 03419001.\n      [2] Letter from John J. Moran to Philip S. Hench, 30 October 1938, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 03476001.","Materials from the following series were initially deposited at the University of Virginia's Alderman Library. In 1982, they were moved to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library under the terms of a gift agreement that required the transferral of Mary K. Hench's donation to the library when adequate storage space for the collection could be found there.","Series I. Jesse W. Lazear\n      Series II. Henry Rose Carter\n      Series III. Walter Reed\n      Series IV. Philip Showalter Hench\n      Series V. Maps\n      Series VI. Alphabetical files\n      Series VII. Truby-Kean-Hench\n      Series VIII. Miscellany\n      Series IX. Photographs\n      Series X. Negatives\n      Series XI. Reprints\n      Series XIII. Reed family additions\n      Series XV. Laura Wood","Materials from Series XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center (HAM/TMC) were initially deposited in the HAM/TMC and were a part of the Philip S. Hench papers. In 1991, the materials were transferred from HAM/TMC to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library after both repositories agreed that it would be more appropriate to include them in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection.","Materials from Series XVI. Edward Hook additions were transferred from the Papers of Dr. Edward Watson Hook, Jr. to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection around the late 1990s and early 2000s.","Processed by:\n        Historical Collections Staff","Mary K. Hench's donation arrived in Charlottesville in a number of large crates which were packed much as the collection had been found in Philip Showalter Hench's home in Rochester, Minnesota. Some confusion about Dr. Hench's filing order had been created while the collection was packed for shipping, and thus the Manuscripts Department of the University of Virginia Library found it necessary to perform some sorting and arrangement to make the collection more accessible.","Around 1968, William Bennett Bean was hired by the University of Virginia as a visiting scholar in residence to begin work on a new biography of Walter Reed. Dr. Bean found that the order of the collection was not such that he could readily use it for biographical purposes. He employed a former assistant in the Manuscripts Department, sought and received permission to refile the collection, and had his assistant perform this task. The refiling of the collection had been finished by the fall of 1969, but Bean and his assistant had no time to prepare a finding aid.","In the fall of 1969 Donna L. Purvis of the Manuscripts Department staff began writing the first edition of the collection's finding aid. During this project, Mrs. Purvis found some problems with Dr. Bean's description and arrangement of the collection and felt that it was necessary to reprocess parts of it.","Around 1990 staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed additions to the collection donated by Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench.","Between 1999 and 2004, the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library digitized a significant portion of the collection and made the digitized files available to users in an online exhibit. During this project, over 8,000 items from the collection were scanned, transcribed, and described at the item level. Metadata for the digitized items was recorded in XML files using the TEI 2 standard.","In 2001, the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed additions that had been made to the collection since 1982, excepting the materials donated by P. Kahler Hench. Staff members also processed significant portions of Mary K. Hench's original donation that had not been described in the first edition of the collection finding aid. This work led to the development of a second edition finding aid that was coded in EAD and ingested into the Virginia Heritage database. This finding aid contained both new metadata and metadata that had been migrated from a Microsoft Access file.","In the 2000s the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed the materials in Series XV. Edward Hook additions.","In 2009, staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed Box 154 of the collection.","In 2013, staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library produced a third edition of the finding aid using EAD that merged collection description from four sources (the first edition finding aid, the second edition finding aid, the online exhibit, and the physical collection). When possible, metadata from the existing online exhibit's TEI files and metadata from the second edition finding aid were transformed with XSL and included in the EAD file. However, staff members sometimes found it necessary to create new metadata for the collection. The new finding aid was structured in such a way to facilitate the migration of the collection's digital files and metadata into the University of Virginia's digital repository and make it available to users via the library's online catalog.","The Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection documents the work of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, the legacy of the commission's discoveries, the lives of individuals who were connected to the commission, and twentieth century campaigns to shape public memory of the commission. Items in the collection date from 1800 to 1998, with the bulk of the items dating from 1864 to 1974. A wide range of formats are represented in the collection including, but not limited to the following: articles, artifacts, audio cassettes, bills (legislative records), biographies, charts (graphic documents), correspondence, diaries, editorials, interviews, journals (periodicals), magazines, maps, medical records, military records, negatives (photographic), notes, photographs, reports, reprints, scrapbooks, and speeches. Unique materials in the collection are supplemented with copies of original documents and photographs housed in other institutions (e.g. the U.S. National Archives). All of these materials are arranged in 16 series: I. Jesse W. Lazear, II. Henry Rose Carter, III. Walter Reed, IV. Philip Showalter Hench, V. Maps, VI. Alphabetical files, VII. Truby-Kean-Hench, VIII. Miscellany, IX. Photographs, X. Photographic negatives, XI. Reprints, XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions, XIII. Reed family additions, XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions, XV. Laura Wood, and XVI. Edward Hook additions.","Series I. Jesse W. Lazear consists of materials relating to Lazear that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1800 to 1956 with the bulk of the items dating from 1863 to 1943. Much of the series consists of the correspondence of Jesse W. Lazear and his wife Mabel H. Lazear. Jesse's correspondence dates from his time as a student at Johns Hopkins University to his death in 1900. Researchers can learn a great deal about Jesse from these letters, including his relationships with friends and family, his educational background, and his professional life. Mabel's correspondence dates from the time she met Jesse to her death in 1946. This correspondence primarily concern her husband's historical legacy and a campaign to secure a pension from the U.S. government for herself and her family.","In addition to Jesse and Mabel's correspondence, the series contains other materials relating to them and their families including, but not limited to the following:","the diaries documenting the travels of Jesse and Mabel's mothers in Europe;\n      correspondence of other Lazear family members (e.g. Jesse's parents);\n      genealogical summaries and tables relating to the Lazear family;\n      legal documents (e.g. wills, certificates, deeds);\n      military records relating to Jesse;\n      certificates, reports, and other materials documenting Jesse's educational background and achievements;\n      obituaries;\n      copies of congressional bills and reports concerning the provision of a federal pension for Mabel H. Lazear;\n      newspaper articles;\n      a microscope and sets of microscope slides owned by Jesse;\n      and a medical chart that shows the progression of the yellow fever infection that killed Jesse.","Series II. Henry Rose Carter consists of materials relating to Henry Rose Carter that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1880 to 1932 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1883 to 1932. The series is particularly rich in materials that document Henry Rose Carter's professional activities in the last eleven years of his life (1914-1925). These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence with colleagues in the medical and scientific community including Rupert E. Blue, Hideyo Noguchi, Henry Hanson, Joseph A. LePrince, Frederick F. Russell, T.H.D. Griffitts, and Lunsford D. Fricks;\n      scientific, medical, and government reports relating to the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria in North America, South America, and Africa;\n      journal articles concerning the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria;\n      research notes written by Henry Rose Carter;\n      and photographs of Henry Rose Carter at work and with professional colleagues.","Series II. also contains correspondence between Henry Rose Carter and members of his family that date from 1880 to 1925. The family members with whom Henry corresponds most frequently in this series are his mother, Emma Coleman Carter; his wife, Laura Eugenia Hook Carter; his daughter, Laura Armistead Carter; and his son, Henry Rose Carter, Jr. These letters are not only a rich source of information about Carter's personal views and family life, they also provide valuable insights into his professional activities such as his experiences aboard vessels and in ports while working for the U.S. Marine Hospital Service and his public health work in Cuba, Panama, and Peru.","In addition to the materials that were produced during Henry Rose Carter's lifetime, the Series II. contains materials that were produced between 1925 and 1940 (after Henry Rose Carter's death) including, but not limited to the following:","copies of obituaries for Henry Rose Carter;\n      condolence letters for Henry Rose Carter's family after Henry's death;\n      and the correspondence of Laura Armistead Carter relating to her father and other members of the Carter family.","Series III. Walter Reed consists of materials that document the life of Walter Reed as well as the work and legacy of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission. Items in the series date from 1806 to around 1955 with the bulk of the items dating from 1874 to 1936. The series is particularly rich in materials that document the professional and personal life of Walter Reed from 1874 to his death in 1902. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence between Walter Reed and members of his immediate family that cover a wide range of topics including Reed's courtship of Emilie Lawrence Reed, family life, Walter Reed's work in the Western United States, and Walter Reed's work in Cuba;\n      military records relating to Walter Reed including military orders for Reed, Reed's performance reviews, and reports of Reed's work for army officials;\n      Walter Reed's correspondence with professional colleagues including members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, military doctors, and medical researchers interested in the study of yellow fever;\n      medical records (e.g. fever charts of experiment participants), military orders, administrative records, reports, and publications documenting the results of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's experiments in Cuba;\n      articles announcing the death of Walter Reed;\n      and the shoulder boards from Walter Reed's U.S. Army uniform.","In addition to the above items, Series III. contains materials that document campaigns, spanning from 1902 to 1937, to publicly honor members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and those who participated in the commission's experiments. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","articles and editorials relating to efforts to memorialize and provide pensions for members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and those who participated in the commission's experiments;\n      biographical sketches of members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and experiment participants;\n      records relating to the Walter Reed Memorial Association (e.g. correspondence, donor lists);\n      copies of Congressional bills and resolutions to honor members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and experiment participants;\n      and letters, reviews, and other materials relating to the production of Sidney Coe Howard's play,Yellow Jack.","Finally, Series III. also consists of materials that document the history of yellow fever during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","items (e.g. correspondence, reports, reviews, and articles) relating to U.S. efforts to eradicate yellow fever in the Panama Canal Zone;\n      materials (e.g. correspondence, reports, and articles) documenting early twentieth century efforts to eradicate yellow fever in Peru;\n      scientific reports and publications related to the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria;\n      and newspaper articles describing various outbreaks of yellow fever epidemics.","Series IV. Philip Showalter Hench primarily consists of materials that Hench created or collected while researching the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission. Items in this series date from around 1850 to around 1865 with the bulk of the items dating from 1937 to 1960. Researchers who are studying the yellow fever experiments will be particularly interested in the materials (e.g. interviews, autobiographies) that document first-hand accounts of the events surrounding the experiments. Other researchers may be interested in items that document Hench's role in shaping public memory of the commission and its experiments. The materials in this series include, but are not limited to the following:","Hench's correspondence and interviews with participants in the yellow fever experiments and their families including: Emilie Lawrence Reed, Emilie M. (Blossom) Reed, Walter Lawrence Reed, John J. Moran, Albert E. Truby, Jefferson Randolph Kean, John H. Andrus, and John R. Kissinger;\n      autobiographical accounts of the experiment's participants and their families;\n      notes, reports, correspondence and other materials relating to Hench's search for the original site of Camp Lazear in Cuba;\n      correspondence with Cuban government officials and members of the scientific community relating to Hench's campaign to build a Camp Lazear memorial;\n      correspondence and other materials relating to ceremonies honoring Jesse W. Lazear at Washington and Jefferson College;\n      newspaper articles, magazine articles, and other printed matter concerning the yellow fever experiments and its participants;\n      drafts of speeches and presentations Hench gave on the history of the yellow fever experiments to various audiences;\n      meeting minutes and other materials that document Hench's relationship with and participation in the Walter Reed Memorial Association;\n      scripts for radio programs relating to the yellow fever experiments;\n      notes, outlines, lists, correspondence, and other materials that document Hench's research about the yellow fever experiments and a book he had planned to write on the subject;\n      and the gold medal that Congress posthumously awarded to Walter Reed for his work with yellow fever.","Series V. Maps primarily consists of maps and floor plans that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1846 to around 1960 with the bulk of the items dating from 1899 to 1951. The maps and floor plans often include annotations and illustrate a wide range of locations including, but not limited to the following:","Havana and its environs;\n      Cuba;\n      sites associated with the yellow fever experiments;\n      and military installations in the United States.","In addition to the maps and floor plans, Series V. also consists of a few newspaper and magazine clippings that contain information relating to the yellow fever experiments.","Series VI. Alphabetical files primarily consists of materials that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1860 to around 1966 with the bulk of the items dating from 1940 to 1956. All of these items have been arranged thematically into biographical files. Each file contains materials created by or relating to people who were either involved with the yellow fever experiments or aided Philip Showalter Hench in his research of the subject. These people include, but are not limited to: John J. Moran, Carlos E. Finlay, Laura Wood Roper, Mabel Lazear, Clara Maas, John R. Kissinger, Roger Post Ames, James C. Carroll, and Carlos J. Finlay. The files are arranged alphabetically by the last names of the individuals listed on the files and it is unclear whether the overall arrangement was made by Hench or by staff members at the University of Virginia. The biographical files contain a wide range of different materials that pertain to the individuals listed on the files. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and the individuals;\n      other correspondence;\n      newspaper and magazine clippings;\n      unpublished manuscripts;\n      biographical and autobiographical accounts;\n      transcripts of oral history interviews that were conducted by Philip Showalter Hench;\n      and copies of medical charts for volunteers in the yellow fever experiments that shows the progression of the disease.","In addition to the materials that Hench created or collected during his lifetime, the biographical files in Series VI. also contain items that were added by staff at the University of Virginia Library during the late 1960s and early 1970s.","Series VII. Truby-Kean-Hench primarily consists of materials relating to Albert E. Truby and Jefferson Randolph Kean that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1879 to around 1960 with the bulk of the items dating from 1900 to 1954. These items include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence of Jefferson Randolph Kean dating from 1900 to 1950 that relates to his personal life, the yellow fever experiments, public health initiatives, his publications, the legacy of the yellow fever experiments, Kean's work in World War I, and other topics;\n      Philip Showalter Hench's correspondence with people related to the yellow fever experiments, particularly Albert E. Truby and Jefferson Randolph Kean primarily from between 1940 and 1955;\n      a scrapbook and other materials that relate to Truby's book,Memoir of Walter Reed: the Yellow Fever Episode;\n      and Philip Showalter Hench's interviews and questionnaires for Kean and Truby from the 1940s.","In addition to the materials relating to Kean and Truby, Series VII. also includes the following:","notes from Philip Showalter Hench's research of the yellow fever experiments;\n      the recollections, autobiographies, and reports of other people involved with the yellow fever experiments including John Andrus and A.S. Pinto;\n      articles and clippings related to the yellow fever experiments;\n      a short biography of Lemuel S. Reed;\n      and a sketch Philip Showalter Hench made of a proposed museum at the Camp Lazear site.","Series VIII. Miscellany consists of oversize and miscellaneous materials in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection that were, for various reasons, not included in any of the other series in the collection. Items in this series date from around 1849 to 1982 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1885 to 1974. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","informed consent agreements for volunteers in the yellow fever experiments;\n      diplomas and certificates for Walter Reed and Jesse W. Lazear;\n      copies and sketches of Dean Cornwell's painting,Conquerors of Yellow Fever;\n      artifacts, including a wooden board from Camp Lazear and a U.S. flag;\n      copies of correspondence, reports, medical records, and military orders from the U.S. National Archives relating to the yellow fever experiments;\n      manuscripts and related notes for published works and research relating to Walter Reed and the yellow fever experiments;\n      correspondence of Philip Showalter Hench from circa 1940 to 1966;\n      articles and clippings relating to the yellow fever experiments, the experiments' participants, and the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\n      correspondence of Atcheson Laughlin Hench and members of the University of Virginia community relating to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\n      items that document the provenance and custodial history of some materials in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\n      photographs relating to Cuba and the yellow fever experiments;\n      notes for photographs and photographic negatives housed in Series IX. and Series X. of this collection.","Series IX. Photographs consists primarily of photographs that Philip Showalter Hench created and collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1846 to around 1966 with the bulk of the items dating from around 1870 to around 1960. The subjects shown in the photographs include, but are not limited to the following:","physicians, military personnel, nurses, and volunteers associated with the experiments including Walter Reed, Jesse W. Lazear, Jefferson Randolph Kean, and Aristides Agramonte;\n      family members of people associated with the yellow fever experiments including their spouses, children, and grandchildren.\n      Camp Lazear, Camp Columbia, and other locations in Cuba related to the yellow fever experiments between 1900 and 1960;\n      the U.S.S.Maineand the Spanish-American War;\n      aerial views of Havana, Cuba and its environs from the 1940s and 1950s;\n      scenes of daily life in Cuba generally from between 1898 and 1960;\n      the 1952 dedication of the Camp Lazear National Monument in Cuba;\n      the creation and unveiling of Dean Cornwell's painting,Conquerors of Yellow Fever;\n      still scenes from the movies,Yellow JackandJezebel;\n      other events and works of art commemorating the work of the participants in the yellow fever experiments;\n      documents and maps that Philip Showalter Hench copied for his research;\n      and Philip Showalter Hench and his family.","Series IX. also includes a watercolor that was painted by Emilie Lawrence Reed.","Series X. Photographic negatives consists of a mix of original and copy negatives that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Although the original images recorded on the negatives date from between the 1860s and the 1960s, it appears that the negatives themselves were produced during a narrower time frame, most likely between 1930 and 1966.","The negatives in Series X. record images associated with the yellow fever experiments and many of them are related to photographic prints found in Series VIII. Where a match between a negative and a print from these series has been made, the negative number has been written on the folder of the print in the physical collection. Finally, the negatives are generally arranged in numerical order by identification numbers that were most likely assigned by Philip Showalter Hench.","Series XI. Reprints consists of reprints and photocopies of journal articles, book extracts, book reviews and other published works that were primarily collected by Philip Showalter Hench while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from 1856 to 1971 and cover a wide range of topics related to the study and eradication of yellow fever, including, but not limited to the following:","the results of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work in Cuba;\n      biographical accounts of various people who had an association with the yellow fever experiments;\n      the research of people associated with the experiments including Walter Reed, Jesse W. Lazear, Aristides Agramonte, and James Carroll;\n      scientific and medical research related to yellow fever and malaria;\n      and events honoring the work of those involved with the yellow fever experiments.","Series XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions consists of materials that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1901 to around 1966. These materials were originally a part of the Philip S. Hench papers in the John P. McGovern Historical Collections and Research Center at the Texas Medical Center Library, but they were transferred to the University of Virginia in 1991. These items include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and people connected with the yellow fever experiments including John J. Moran and Walter Reed's children;\n      newspaper clippings relating to the death or commemoration of individuals associated with the yellow fever experiments;\n      photographs of the Camp Lazear Memorial, everyday scenes in Cuba, and John J. Moran;\n      and journal articles, booklets, and other printed matter relating to the yellow fever experiments and its participants.","Series XIII. Reed family additions consists of materials relating to the yellow fever experiments that several different donors gave to the University of Virginia. Items in the series date from around 1850 to 1967 with the bulk of the items dating from 1868 to 1949. The largest portion of the series is comprised of correspondence written by Walter Reed and his family between 1877 and 1902 that provide insights into their relationships and personal lives.","In addition to the Reed family's correspondence, the series also contains other materials relating to the Reed family and the yellow fever experiments including, but not limited to the following:","a flag that was flown over Camp Lazear;\n      newspaper clippings and articles relating to the yellow fever experiments;\n      a chemistry notebook that was owned by Walter Reed;\n      correspondence of and works by Philip Showalter Hench;\n      an inventory of materials in Series XIII. and information about their accession into the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library;\n      and materials from an exhibit on the yellow fever experiments that was hosted in Alderman Library at the University of Virginia.","Series XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions consists of original and photocopied materials that Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench, donated to the University of Virginia in 1988 and 1989. Items in the series date from around 1860 to 1965 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1898 to 1965. Most of these items were collected or created by Philip Showalter Hench while researching the yellow fever experiments. These items include the following:","the correspondence of experiment participants;\n      correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and the experiment participants;\n      correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and families of the experiment participants;\n      press clippings relating to the experiments and the experiment participants;\n      oral history interviews conducted by Philip Showalter Hench;\n      scientific articles related to the study of yellow fever;\n      photographs of Havana, Camp Columbia, and Camp Lazear;\n      genealogical tables and summaries for the family of Jesse W. Lazear;\n      autobiographical accounts written by experiment participants;\n      unpublished manuscripts;\n      artifacts (e.g. a wooden board) from Camp Lazear;\n      Philip Showalter Hench's research notes.","Series XIV. also contains correspondence and financial records that record the transfer of collection items from the Reed family to Philip Showalter Hench and later from the Hench family to the University of Virginia.","Series XV. Laura Wood primarily consists of Laura Wood's correspondence relating to her research for a Walter Reed biography that she wrote. The series also includes, but is not limited to the following materials:","photocopies of two letters written by Walter Reed;\n      a journal article by George Sternberg;\n      and a short work that Laura Wood wrote about Walter Reed entitled,Walter Reed and yellow Fever.","Items in Series XV. date from 1875 to 1946 with the bulk of the items dating from 1941 to 1946.","Series XVI. Edward Hook additions consists of copies of letters, articles, and photographs relating to the yellow fever experiments that had been collected by Edward W. Hook, Jr, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia. The bulk of this series is comprised of copies of a small collection of James Carroll's correspondence. The original versions of Carroll's correspondence are not housed at the University of Virginia. In addition to the Carroll letters, this series also includes, but is not limited to the following:","photographs of Walter Reed and others related to the yellow fever experiments;\n      copies of some of Theodore E. Woodward's works relating to James Carroll and yellow fever;\n      and exhibition materials.","Items in Series XVI. date from around 1880 to around 1998 with the bulk of the items dating from 1898 to 1901.","Copyright restrictions may apply for some materials in the collection.","The Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection documents the work of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, the legacy of the commission's discoveries, the lives of individuals who were connected to the commission, and twentieth century campaigns to shape public memory of the commission. Items in the collection date from 1800 to 1998, with the bulk of the items dating from 1864 to 1974. A wide range of formats are represented in the collection including, but not limited to the following: articles, artifacts, audiocassettes, bills (legislative records), biographies, charts (graphic documents), correspondence, diaries, editorials, interviews, journals (periodicals), magazines, maps, medical records, military records, negatives (photographic), notes, photographs, reports, reprints, scrapbooks, and speeches. Unique materials in the collection are supplemented with copies of original documents and photographs housed in other institutions (e.g. the U.S. National Archives). Most of the materials in the collection were collected or created by Nobel laureate Philip Showalter Hench while researching the history of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission.","Claude Moore Health Sciences Library","United States. Army","Collection is predominantly in English; other materials in the collection are in Spanish, French, and Portuguese."],"collection_title_tesim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974"],"collection_ssim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever collection, 1800/1998, bulk 1863/1974"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["MS.1","Archival Resource Key","/repositories/7/resources/1710"],"unitid_tesim":["MS.1","Archival Resource Key","/repositories/7/resources/1710"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"creator_ssm":["United States. Army"],"creator_ssim":["United States. Army"],"creator_corpname_ssim":["Claude Moore Health Sciences Library","United States. Army"],"creators_ssim":["Claude Moore Health Sciences Library","United States. Army"],"access_terms_ssm":["Copyright restrictions may apply for some materials in the collection."],"acqinfo_ssim":["Materials from the following series were donated to the University of Virginia's Alderman Library in the fall of 1966 and the summer of 1970 by Philip Showalter Hench's widow, Mary Kahler Hench, with the approval of his estate:","Series I. Jesse W. Lazear\n      Series II. Henry Rose Carter\n      Series III. Walter Reed\n      Series IV. Philip Showalter Hench\n      Series V. Maps\n      Series VI. Alphabetical files\n      Series VII. Truby-Kean-Hench\n      Series VIII. Miscellany\n      Series IX. Photographs\n      Series X. Negatives\n      Series XI. Reprints","Materials from Series XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center (HAM/TMC) were donated to the HAM/TMC by Philip Showalter Hench as a small part of a larger collection of materials.","Materials from Series XIII. Reed family additions were donated by various individuals to Alderman Library between 1947 and 1972. Box 139, Folder 1 contains a list that describes each of these donations in detail.","Materials from Series XIV. P. Kahler Hench were donated to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library by Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench, in 1988 and 1989.","Materials from Series XV. Laura Wood were most likely donated to Alderman Library between 1972 and 1982.","Materials from Series XVI. Edward Hook additions were donated to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library as a part of the Papers of Dr. Edward Watson Hook, Jr."],"access_subjects_ssim":["Human Experimentation","Military Medicine","Physicians","Public health","Tropical medicine","Yellow Fever"],"access_subjects_ssm":["Human Experimentation","Military Medicine","Physicians","Public health","Tropical medicine","Yellow Fever"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"extent_ssm":["67 Linear Feet 154 boxes"],"extent_tesim":["67 Linear Feet 154 boxes"],"date_range_isim":[1800,1801,1802,1803,1804,1805,1806,1807,1808,1809,1810,1811,1812,1813,1814,1815,1816,1817,1818,1819,1820,1821,1822,1823,1824,1825,1826,1827,1828,1829,1830,1831,1832,1833,1834,1835,1836,1837,1838,1839,1840,1841,1842,1843,1844,1845,1846,1847,1848,1849,1850,1851,1852,1853,1854,1855,1856,1857,1858,1859,1860,1861,1862,1863,1864,1865,1866,1867,1868,1869,1870,1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878,1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959,1960,1961,1962,1963,1964,1965,1966,1967,1968,1969,1970,1971,1972,1973,1974,1975,1976,1977,1978,1979,1980,1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986,1987,1988,1989,1990,1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThere are no restrictions on user access to any of the materials in the collection except where noted in the container list.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["There are no restrictions on user access to any of the materials in the collection except where noted in the container list."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection is organized in 16 series:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eI. Jesse W. Lazear\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eII. Henry Rose Carter\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eIII. Walter Reed\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eIV. Philip Showalter Hench\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eV. Maps\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eVI. Alphabetical files\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eVII. Truby-Kean-Hench\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eVIII. Miscellany\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eIX. Photographs\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eX. Photographic negatives\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eXI. Reprints\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eXII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eXIII. Reed family additions\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eXIV. P. Kahler Hench additions\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eXV. Laura Wood\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eXVI. Edward Hook additions\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization of the Collection"],"arrangement_tesim":["The Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection is organized in 16 series:","I. Jesse W. Lazear\n      II. Henry Rose Carter\n      III. Walter Reed\n      IV. Philip Showalter Hench\n      V. Maps\n      VI. Alphabetical files\n      VII. Truby-Kean-Hench\n      VIII. Miscellany\n      IX. Photographs\n      X. Photographic negatives\n      XI. Reprints\n      XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions\n      XIII. Reed family additions\n      XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions\n      XV. Laura Wood\n      XVI. Edward Hook additions"],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Historical Information for the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission","Biographical Information for Walter Reed","Biographical Information for Jesse W. Lazear","Biographical Information for Henry Rose Carter","Biographical Information for Jefferson Randolph Kean","Biographical Information for Philip Showalter Hench"],"bioghist_tesim":["The U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission (1900-1901) was a board of physicians that the U.S. government formed in order to determine how yellow fever was transmitted between hosts. Ultimately, the commission's experiments in Cuba proved that mosquitoes transmit yellow fever--a discovery that would spur successful campaigns to control and eradicate yellow fever throughout much of the globe.","When Major Walter Reed and Acting Assistant Surgeons James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse Lazear gathered on the porch of the Columbia Barracks Hospital in June of 1900, they became the fourth successive board of U.S. medical officers to grapple with the appalling plague that was yellow fever.","The persistence of this disease across the Cuban archipelago and its periodic re-emergence along the coastlines and great river drainages of the Americas was taking countless thousands of lives. Lack of precise knowledge as to its cause and transmission had augmented yellow fever's extraordinarily high mortality rate and had given rise to quarantine regulations which constituted substantial impediments to efficient regional trade. Endemic in the tropics, yellow fever imposed high humanitarian and economic costs upon the entire region. Specialists regarded Cuba as one of the principal foci of the disease, and the island consequently attracted considerable attention from the medical sciences.","In 1879, one year after a devastating epidemic swept up the Mississippi valley from New Orleans, Tulane University Professor Stanford E. Chaille led the first investigatory commission to Havana, Rio de Janeiro, and the West Indies. The Chaille Commission remained in Havana three months, and its members -- including George Miller Sternberg, who became Surgeon General of the Army, and Juan Guiteras, later Director of Public Health for Havana -- consulted with Cuban scientist Carlos J. Finlay. They concluded that the causal agent for yellow fever was possibly a living entity in the atmosphere, an assertion which set Finlay on the path to the mosquito theory he developed in 1881.","Louis Pasteur's foundational and highly successful work in modern immunology in 1880 and 1881 gave a renewed impetus to investigations aimed at discovering the \"yellow fever germ.\" Over the middle years of the 1880s several scientists advanced different theories, all readily refuted by bacteriological work Sternberg undertook in Brazil and Mexico in 1887 and again in Havana in 1888 and 1889. In 1897, Italian scientist Giuseppe Sanarelli argued thatBacillus icteroideswas the culprit, and the following year a third scientific team sailed to Cuba for additional tests. Eugene Wasdin and Henry D. Geddings appeared to confirm Sanarelli's assertion, though Sternberg, by then Surgeon General, remained skeptical.","Despite Wasdin and Geddings' insistence, theB. icteroidestheory garnered significant opposition. In fact, a few months before the third commission's report reached the public, Walter Reed and James Carroll -- Reed's assistant at the Columbian University (later George Washington University) bacteriology laboratories in Washington, D.C. -- published a thorough refutation of theicteroidesproposal: the bacteria was not a unique cause of yellow fever, but a variety of the hog cholera bacillus, \"a secondary invader in yellow fever,\" Reed determined, unrelated to its etiology. [1] Dispute continued, however, and when Sternberg organized the fourth investigatory board, he charged Reed and his associates to settle theB. icteroidesquestion once and for all, then to proceed with analysis of other blood cultures and intestinal flora from yellow fever cases.","Reed and Carroll had considerable experience in bacteriological analysis, and, Sternberg reasoned, might well be able to find the specific agent of the disease. Aristides Agramonte, a Cuban scientist who had worked in Reed's lab at the Columbian University in 1898, was also an accomplished bacteriologist; he had identifiedB. icteroidesin tissue samples from cases other than yellow fever, providing further evidence opposed to Sanarelli's thesis. Jesse Lazear, a scientist from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, had joined the Army Medical Corps to study tropical diseases at their point of origin; he received orders for Cuba in February 1900. Lazear impressed Reed with his abilities when the two men became acquainted in March. No doubt with Reed's advice, Sternberg assembled a crack team -- all experienced in scientific research, but each with interests as diverse as their temperaments. The mix of talent and personalities generated spectacular results.","What causes yellow fever? This simple, even obvious question had dictated yellow fever research for over two decades, and so it guided Reed in organizing the work of the commission.Bacillus icteroidesand other bacteriological sampling dominated their work for the first months. \"Reed and Carroll have been at that for a long time,\" Lazear wrote with some impatience to his wife on August 23, \". . . I would rather try to find the germ without bothering about Sanarelli.\" [2] Again and again, tests for the bacteria proved negative, and at the same time, perplexing cases of yellow fever were developing in the region. Agramonte and Reed investigated an epidemic at Pinar del Rio, 110 miles southwest of Havana; Lazear followed later to collect more specimens, and he also assessed the situation at Guanjay thirty miles southwest. To \"my very great surprise,\" Reed admitted, the specific circumstances of the appearance and development of these cases gave strong evidence against the widely-accepted notion that the excreta of patients spread the disease. The theory of fomites -- infection from contaminated clothing and bedding -- and indeed even infection from airborne particles seemed altogether untrue. \"At this stage of our investigation,\" Reed concluded, \". . . the time had arrived when the plan of our work should be radically changed.\" [3] The fundamental question underwent a subtle but critical transformation: from what causes yellow fever to what transmits it. A clear and accurate understanding of how the disease was spread would open a new avenue to its specific cause.","\"Personally, I feel that only can experimentation on human beings serve to clear the field for further effective work,\" Reed stated to Surgeon General Sternberg, who concurred. [4] Evidence gathering around them pointed strongly to an intermediate host, and the Commission resolved to test Carlos Finlay's mosquito theory -- then not generally accepted -- on human volunteers. Nine times from August 11 to August 25, 1900, mosquitoes landed on the arms of volunteers and proceeded to feed. Nine times the results were negative. On August 27, Lazear placed a mosquito on the doubting Dr. Carroll, and four days later on William J. Dean, a soldier designated XY in the \"Preliminary Note.\" [5] Both promptly developed yellow fever. Significantly, their mosquitoes had fed on cases within the initial three days of an attack and had been allowed to ripen for at least twelve days before the inoculations. Carroll vitiated the results of his experimental sickness by traveling off the post to Havana, a contaminated zone, even as Reed, ecstatic, wrote from Washington in a confidential letter: \"Did the Mosquito do it?\" [6] Dean's case seemed to prove it, since he claimed not to have left the garrison before becoming ill. Lazear also developed a case of yellow fever, almost certainly experimental in origin, though he never revealed the actual circumstances of his inoculation. His severe bout of fever took a fatal turn on September 25, 1900.","Nevertheless, these results could not have been more dramatic or convincing for the Commission. Reed quickly assembled a \"Preliminary Note,\" which he presented to the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association in Indianapolis, Indiana, October 23, 1900. After initial consultations in Cuba with General Leonard Wood, military governor of the island, and with Surgeon General Sternberg in Washington, he returned to Cuba with authorization and funding to design and carry forward a fully defensible series of experiments. His aim was confirmation of the mosquito theory and invalidation of the long-held belief in fomites.","On open terrain beyond the precincts of Columbia Barracks -- the American military base just west of Havana near the adjacent suburban towns of Quemados and Marianao (also called Quemados de Marianao) -- Reed established the quarantined experimental station. Camp Lazear, as the Commission dedicated it, took form in the rolling fields of the Finca San Jose, on the farm of Dr. Ignacio Rojas, who leased the land to the Americans. Here Reed designed two small wood-frame buildings, each 14 by 20 feet, for the experimental work, and nearby raised a group of seven tents for the accommodation and support of the volunteers. The buildings faced each other across a small swale, about 80 yards apart, and stood 75 yards from the tent encampment. Building Number One, called the Infected Clothing Building, was a single room tightly constructed to contain as much foul air as possible. A small stove kept the temperature and humidity at tropical levels, and carefully attached screening secured the pair of doorways in a vestibule against intrusion by mosquitoes. Wooden blinds on two small sealed windows shielded the room from direct sun. Building Number Two, the Infected Mosquito Building, contained a principal room, divided into two sections by a floor-to-ceiling wire mesh screen. A door direct to the exterior let into one section, while a vestibule with a solid exterior door and pair of successive screened doors opened to the other, so configured to keep infected mosquitoes inside that section alone. The spare furnishings in both sections -- cots with bedding -- were steam sterilized. Windows exposed the entire room to the clean, steady ocean breezes and to sunlight. Like the doorways, they were carefully screened. A secondary room attached to the building but not communicating with the experimental spaces sheltered the small, heated laboratory where the Commission members raised and stored the mosquitoes to be used.","These two experimental buildings presented alternate environments -- one conspicuously clean and well ventilated, the other filthy and fetid. Contemporary theories of disease held that yellow fever developed in unclean conditions, and consequently much time and money had been devoted to sanitation projects. Workers steamed clothing, burned sulphur in ships' holds, and thoroughly scrubbed surfaces with disinfectant. In cases of severe epidemic, entire buildings presumed to be infected were set afire along with their contents. Thus the extraordinary -- and intentional -- paradox of the Commission's experimental regime: Reed expected yellow fever to develop not in the unsanitary environment, but in the one thought to be most healthful.","Camp Lazear went into quarantine the day of its completion, November 20, 1900, with a command of four immune and nine non-immune individuals, all save one U.S. Army personnel. Soon a group of recent Spanish immigrants to Cuba augmented the non-immune numbers, bringing the resident total to about twenty. Reed strictly controlled access to the camp and ordered regular temperature recording for each volunteer to eliminate any unanticipated source of infection and to identify the onset of any case of yellow fever as early as possible. As a result, non-immunes were barred from returning should they leave the precinct, and two of the Spaniards who developed intermittent fevers shortly after arrival were immediately transferred with their baggage to Columbia Barracks Hospital. The immune members of the detachment oversaw medical treatments and drove the teams of mules that pulled supply wagons and the ambulance. Experimentation did not begin until each volunteer had passed the incubation period for yellow fever in perfect health.","Reed took as much care with the design of the experimental protocol as he had with the configuration of the camp and its buildings. Each evening, the occupants of the infected clothing building unpacked trunks and boxes of bed linens and blankets, nightshirts and other clothing recently worn and soiled by cases from the wards of Columbia Barracks Hospital and Las Animas Hospital in Havana. These they shook out and spread around the room to permeate the atmosphere. The stench was overpowering. Yellow fever causes severe internal hemorrhaging, and its unfortunate victims often suffer from black vomit and other bloody discharges. One routine delivery proved so putrid the volunteers \"retreated from the house,\" Reed stated. \"They pluckily returned, however, within a short time, and spent the night as usual.\" [7] In two succeeding trials the protocol became progressively more daring , as the volunteers then wore the clothing and slept on the mattresses used by yellow fever patients, and finally put towels on their bedding smeared with blood drawn from cases in the early stages of an attack. Each morning, the volunteers carefully repacked the rank, encrusted materials into boxes and emerged to an adjacent tent where they spent the day quarantined from the rest of the company. Three trials of twenty days each involved seven men altogether, lead by Robert P. Cooke, a physician in the Army Medical Corps. None developed yellow fever.","The Commission's mosquito experiments proceeded in four series. First, Reed sought to demonstrate that mosquitoes of the varietyCulex fasciata(later calledStegomyia fasciata, and later stillAedes aegypti) could in fact transmit yellow fever, as Carlos J. Finlay had argued and the initial experiments at Camp Columbia strongly suggested. Here the Commission members simply applied infected mosquitoes contained in test tubes or jars to the skin of the initial volunteers. Success in these tests raised a number of questions, each one addressed in the subsequent series:","How could a building become infected?\n      When does a mosquito develop the ability to transmit the disease?\n      Over what length of time can a mosquito retain this capacity to infect?","The second series consequently employed the specialized \"Infected Mosquito Building\" to indicate how a structure could be considered infected with yellow fever. This experiment required two groups of volunteers, one to be inoculated and another to serve as controls. \"Loaded\" mosquitoes, as the men called them, were released into the screened section of Building Two -- on the side with the protected vestibule entry. One or more non-immune men then entered the opposite section of the room through the direct exterior door, and lay down on bunks adjacent to the wire mesh screen in the center of the room. Now the young man to be inoculated walked through the vestibule into the mosquito side of the room and proceeded to lie on a bunk adjacent to the wire screen separating him from the controls. The inoculation volunteer remained in the building for about twenty minutes -- enough time to suffer several mosquito bites -- he then exited to a quarantine tent outside. The controls spent the remainder of the evening and night in the uninfected side of the room, and indeed returned to sleep in the room for as many as eighteen more nights. As Reed stated, absence of yellow fever in the controls showed \"that the essential factor in the infection of a building with yellow fever is the presence therein of [infected] mosquitoes,\" and nothing more. [8] The degree of sanitation, so long considered critical, was utterly irrelevant.","The third series of mosquito experiments confirmed what Henry Rose Carter, of the U.S. Public Health Service, called the \"period of extrinsic incubation,\" [9] the length of time required for secondary cases of yellow fever to develop after an initial intrusion of the disease into a locality. In this series, a single volunteer underwent three successive inoculations by the same mosquitoes, each group of inoculations interrupted by a period of time equal in length to the typical incubation period of the disease in humans, about five days. In this manner, the volunteer's illness could be specifically attributed to a single inoculation group. The use of the same mosquitoes and the same volunteer concurrently demonstrated that no peculiar personal immunity was at play, since logic dictates that a person susceptible to yellow fever on day 17 of a mosquito's contamination -- as happened in the experiment -- could not have been immune to yellow fever on day 11 or day 4. It was thus only the mosquito's capacity to infect which changed, and that occurred no less than 11 days after contamination.","The duration of time over which these \"fully ripened\" mosquitoes remained infective comprised the fourth series of experiments. For this series the Commission kept alive a group of infected mosquitoes for as long as possible, and proceeded to inoculate three volunteers -- on the 39th, 51st, and 57th day after contamination. Each developed yellow fever. A fourth volunteer declined to be bitten on day 65, and the last two mosquitoes of the group, \"deprived of further opportunity to feed on human blood\" [10] expired on day 69 and day 71, clear evidence that even a sparsely populated region may retain the potential for new infections more than two months after the first appearance of the disease.","Although it went unrecorded in the published papers, Reed organized a supplemental experiment to test another species of mosquito.Culex pungensfailed to transmit yellow fever to at least one volunteer and probably to a second. Reed's preliminary conclusions indicated thatCulex fasciatawas the only species capable of transmitting yellow fever. [11]","A last experimental regime involved subcutaneous injections of blood from positive cases of yellow fever to presumed non-immunes. Reed devised these tests to confirm the presence of the yellow fever agent in the blood of a victim during the first days of an attack, and, more importantly, to settle theBacillus icteroidesquestion. The same blood cultures which produced yellow fever in four volunteers also failed to grow anyB. icteroides, conclusively invalidating Sanarelli's claim.","Altogether, the mosquito inoculations and the blood injections produced fourteen cases of yellow fever. All made a full recovery.","Notwithstanding the decisive medical victory -- as Reed declared, \"aside from the antitoxin of Diptheria and Koch's discovery of the tubercle bacillus, it will be regarded as the most important piece of work, scientifically, during the 19th century\" [12] -- success at Camp Lazear unfolded in its own time. Initially, Reed observed, \"the results obtained at this station were not encouraging.\" [13] The first inoculations of four volunteers over a period of two weeks proved disconcertingly negative each time. Then, on December 5, 1900, private John R. Kissinger presented his arm to the mosquitoes, and late in the evening on December 8, suffered the first chills of \"a well-marked attack of yellow fever.\" [14] Three more men in rapid succession fell victim to the insects -- Spanish volunteers Antonio Benigno, Nicanor Fernandez, and Vicente Presedo. The force of the conclusions was evident to everyone:","\"It can readily be imagined,\" Reed empathetically and wryly described in his first presentation of the experiments, \"that the concurrence of 4 cases of yellow fever in our small command of 12 non-immunes within the space of 1 week, while giving rise to feelings of exultation in the hearts of the experimenters, in view of the vast importance attaching to these results, might inspire quite other sentiments in the bosoms of those who had previously consented to submit themselves to the mosquito's bite. In fact, several of our good-natured Spanish friends who had jokingly compared our mosquitoes to 'the little flies that buzzed harmlessly about their tables,' suddenly appeared to lose all interest in the progress of science, and, forgetting for the moment even their own personal aggrandizement, incontinently severed their connection with Camp Lazear. Personally, while lamenting to some extent their departure, I could not but feel that in placing themselves beyond our control they were exercising the soundest judgment.\"","\"In striking contrast,\" Reed continued, the anxiety of the fomites volunteers began to melt into relief. \"[T]he countenances of these men, which had before borne the serious aspect of those who were bravely facing an unseen foe, suddenly took on the glad expression of 'schoolboys let out for a holiday,' and from this time their contempt for 'fomites' could not find sufficient expression. Thus illustrating once more, gentlemen, the old adage that familiarity, even with fomites, may breed contempt.\" [15]","The question of human experimentation was indeed a serious one -- unavoidable, in actuality, as Reed had stated the previous summer to Surgeon General Sternberg. When the Commission first considered a trial of Finlay's mosquito theory, Reed, Carroll, and Lazear agreed to experiment on themselves. Agramonte, a native Cuban, had acquired immunity as a child. Doubtless Finlay's experience of many unsuccessful inoculations communicated that positive results would not be forthcoming rapidly, so before the first series of inoculations began under Lazear's direction at Columbia Barracks, Reed left Cuba for Washington, where he completed a monumental report on typhoid fever among the army corps -- left unfinished by the sudden death of co-author Edward O. Shakespeare. Carroll and Lazear both sickened while Reed was in Washington, and Lazear, young and strong, had no reason to anticipate that his case would be fatal. Reed was shocked at Lazear's death, and because of his own age -- 49, a decade and a half older than Lazear and a dozen years older than Carroll -- he resolved not to inoculate himself when he returned to Cuba on October 4, 1900. The point had already been amply demonstrated, and only a rigidly controlled experimental regime would establish the necessary proof. Carroll, however, remained embittered about this for the remainder of his life, though he evidently never communicated his objections directly to Reed.","That initial series of mosquito inoculations was probably accomplished without formal documentation of informed consent. Indeed, the experiments may also have been carried forward without the full knowledge of the commanding officer of Camp Columbia, and Reed consequently shielded the identity of Private William J. Dean, the second positive experimental case, behind the pseudonym \"XY\" in the \"Preliminary Note.\" No such potentially troublesome problems arose for the experimental series at Camp Lazear; Reed obtained prior support from all of the appropriate authorities in the military and the administration, even including the Spanish Consul to Cuba. With the advice of the Commission and others, he drafted what is now one of the oldest series of extant informed consent documents. The surviving examples are in Spanish with English translations, and were signed by volunteers Antonio Benigno and Vicente Presedo, and a third with the mark of Nicanor Fernandez, who was illiterate.","The documents take the form of a contract between individual volunteers and the Commission, represented by Reed. At least 25 years old, each volunteer explicitly consented to participate, and balanced the certainty of contracting yellow fever in the general population against the risks of developing an experimental case, followed by expert and timely medical care. The volunteers agreed to remain at Camp Lazear for the duration of the experiments, and as a reward for participation would receive $100 \"in American gold,\" with an additional hundred-dollar supplement for contracting yellow fever. These payments could be assigned to a survivor, and the volunteers agreed to forfeit any remuneration in cases of desertion.","For the American participants no consent documents appear to survive, though in contemporary letters Reed assured his correspondents that the Commission obtained written consent from all the volunteers. The record of expenses for Camp Lazear -- maintained by Reed's friend and colleague in the medical corps, Jefferson Randolph Kean -- indicates that the same schedule of payments for participation and sickness applied to the Americans as well. Volunteers who participated in the fomites tests and in addition the later series of blood injections and the single trial of an alternative species of mosquito also earned $100 each plus the $100 supplement if yellow fever developed. Two Americans declined these gratuities, as Kean termed them, Dr. Robert P. Cooke, of the fomites tests, and John J. Moran, who had recently received an honorable discharge from the service, and was the only American civilian to participate. His was the fourth case of yellow fever to develop from mosquito inoculation. Moran eventually settled in Cuba, where he managed the Havana offices of the Sun Oil Company, and late in life became a close friend of Philip S. Hench. Together the two men rediscovered the site of Camp Lazear in 1940 -- Building Number One still intact -- and successfully lobbied the Cuban government to memorialize there the work of Finlay and the American Commission in the conquest of yellow fever.","Reed informally commemorated his own experiences at Camp Lazear by commissioning a group photograph, evidently taken there shortly before he left Cuba in February 1901. A more important event occurred on the sixth of that month when Reed presented the results of the Camp Lazear yellow fever experiments to a great ovation at the Pan-American Medical Congress in Havana. Three days later he set sail for the United States, and once landed, drafted the Congress paper asThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- An Additional Note, published immediately in theJournal of the American Medical Association. [16]","Though his correspondence intimates a great appreciation for Cuba, Reed never returned to the warm, sunny shores of the island freed of a dreadful plague. Carroll stayed behind at Camp Lazear through February to complete the last experimental series officially bearing the imprimatur of the Yellow Fever Commission, and returned to Washington soon after March first. [17] The Medical Corps retained the lease on Camp Lazear against the possibility of continuing experiments another season, and Carroll, in fact, returned to Havana in August 1901 for a final experimental series, though he did not make use of Camp Lazear. This work involved at least three volunteers at Las Animas Hospital, Havana, who submitted to blood injections. Carroll's assignment aimed at a greater understanding of the yellow fever agent, and he proved that blood drawn from active cases of yellow fever remained virulent even after passing through fine bacteria filters. In addition, by heating contaminated blood which had previously caused cases of yellow fever, Carroll rendered it non-infective -- thereby establishing that this filterable entity, though sub-microscopic, was demonstrably present in the bloodstream. Carroll wrapped up the series in October and returned home to stay. [18] In Cuba, J. Randolph Kean made the last rental payments to Signore Rojas on October 9, 1901, and Camp Lazear, for more than a generation, slipped out of the realm of memory.","Sources:","[1] Walter Reed and James Carroll,Bacillus Icteroides and Bacillus Cholerae Suis -- A Preliminary Note,Medical News(29 April 1899), reprinted in: United States Senate Document No. 822,Yellow Fever, A Compilation of Various Publications(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), p. 55.\n      [2] Letter from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 23 August 1900, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 00341001.\n      [3] Walter Reed, \"The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches,\" in United States Senate Document No. 822,Yellow Fever A Compilation of Various Publications(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), p. 94.\n      [4] Letter from Walter Reed to George M. Sternberg, 24 July 1900, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 02064001.\n      [5] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, Jesse W. Lazear,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note,Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health AssociationIndianapolis, Indiana, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 October 1900.\n      [6] Letter from Walter Reed to James Carroll, 7 September 1900, Edward Hook Additions to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection: James Carroll Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 15312004. The originals of these letters remain in a private collection.\n      [7] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- An Additional Note,Journal of the American Medical Association36 (16 February 1901): 431-440, reprinted in: Senate Document No. 822, p. 84.\n      [8] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 99.\n      [9] Henry Rose Carter,A Note on the Spread of Yellow Fever in Houses, Extrinsic Incubation,Medical Record59 (15 June 1901) 24: 937.\n      [10] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 101.\n      [11]Culex fasciatawas reclassified shortly after the experiments asStegomyiaand later becameAedes aegypti.\n      [12] Letter to from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence Reed, 9 December 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 02231001.\n      [13] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 97.\n      [14] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 98.\n      [15] Walter Reed,The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 99.\n      [16] Please see note [7].\n      [17] The Commission reported these concluding experiments in: Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte,Experimental Yellow Fever,American MedicineII (6 July 1901) 1: 15-23.\n      [18] Walter Reed, James Carroll,The Etiology of Yellow Fever (A Supplemental Note),American MedicineIII (22 February 1902) 8: 301-305.","Walter Reed (September 13, 1851 - November 22, 1902) was a U.S. Army physician who led the army's Yellow Fever Commission 1900 and 1901. Experiments conducted by the commission confirmed a theory that yellow fever is transmitted by mosquitoes--a discovery that led to the control and eradication of this disease across much of the globe. Reed would receive much of the credit for the work of the commission because of his role as its leader, and, long after his death in 1902, he would be widely celebrated as a heroic figure in the fields of public health and medical research.","Reed spent his first days in a small house which served as the parsonage for a Methodist congregation in Gloucester County, Virginia, where his father was minister.  Lemuel Sutton Reed and Pharaba White Reed welcomed young Walter into the family on September 13, 1851;  he was the youngest of their five children.  The Reeds moved to other Virginia parishes during Walter's childhood, and just after the close of the Civil War, transferred to the town of Charlottesville.  That move in 1866 placed Walter in the orbit of the University of Virginia, which he entered a year later at age sixteen under the care of his older brother Christopher, also a student at the University.  Reed attended two year-long sessions, the second devoted entirely to the medical curriculum, and he completed an M.D. degree on July 1, 1869, as one of the youngest students to graduate in the history of the medical school.","At that time the School of Medicine at the University offered little opportunity for direct clinical experience, so Reed subsequently enrolled at the Bellevue Hospital Medical College, in Manhattan, New York.  There he obtained a second M.D. degree in 1870.  Reed interned at a number of hospitals in the New York metropolitan area, including the Infants' Hospital on Randall's Island and the Brooklyn City Hospital.  In 1873, he assumed the position of assistant sanitary officer for the Brooklyn Board of Health.  The large and diverse population of New York, with its many immigrant communities and dense, tenement housing, provided countless medical cases to treat and study;  these served to expose Reed to the vital importance of public health, and developed in him a lifelong interest in the field.  Yet the frenetic life of the great cities began to pall after a few years: \"Here the ever bustling day is crowded into the busy night; nor can we draw the line of separation between the two,\"[1] he wrote to Emilie Lawrence, of Murfreesboro, North Carolina, later to become Mrs. Walter Reed.  Their courtship letters reveal much of his maturing character, interests, and philosophy of life.  Increasing responsibilities with the Board of Health precluded opening a private practice, and Reed's youth proved a barrier in a culture given to offering respect more to the appearance of maturity than to its actual demonstration. Reed consequently resolved to join the Army Medical Corps, both for the professional opportunities it offered immediately and for the modest financial security it could provide to a young man without independent means.  He passed the qualifying examinations in January 1875 and proceeded to his first assignment at the military base on Willet's Point, New York Harbor.","Reed remained in the Medical Corps for the rest of his life, spending many years of the '70s, '80s, and early '90s at difficult postings in the American West.  The first of these -- to the Arizona Territory -- began in the late spring of 1876, and indeed hurried along his wedding to Emilie Lawrence, on April 25, shortly before his departure.  She joined him the following November, and bore two children at frontier posts, a son Walter Lawrence and a daughter Emilie, called Blossom.","Reed's other western assignments included forts in Nebraska, Dakota Territory, and Minnesota, with two eastern interludes at Baltimore, Maryland and another at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama.  During the second of these tours in Baltimore -- over the 1890-1891 academic year -- Reed completed advanced coursework in pathology and bacteriology in the Johns Hopkins University Hospital Pathology Laboratory.  When he returned from his last western appointment in 1893, Reed joined the faculty of the Army Medical School in Washington, D.C., where he held the professorship of Bacteriology and Clinical Microscopy.  He also became curator of the Army Medical Museum and joined the faculty of the Columbian University in Washington (later the George Washington University).  In addition, Reed maintained close ties with professor William Welch and other leading lights in the scientific community he had come to know at Hopkins a few years earlier.","Beyond his teaching responsibilities for the Army and the Columbian University programs, Reed actively pursued medical research projects.  A bibliography of his publications finds entries from 1892 to the year of his untimely death a decade later, and the subjects he investigated range from erysipelas to cholera, typhoid, malaria, and yellow fever, among others.[2]   In 1896, a research trip to investigate an outbreak of smallpox took him to Key West, and there he developed a close friendship with Jefferson Randolph Kean, a fellow Virginian and colleague in the Medical Corps ten years his junior.  When Reed traveled to Cuba in 1899 to study typhoid in the army encampments of the U.S. forces, Kean was already there, and Kean was still in Cuba when Reed returned as the head of the Army board charged by Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg to examine tropical diseases including yellow fever.  Kean and his first wife Louise were great supporters of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work, and Kean in fact served as quartermaster for the famous series of experiments at Camp Lazear.  After the dramatic and conclusive success of those experiments, Kean actively -- though unsuccessfully -- promoted Reed's candidacy for Surgeon General.","Reed continued to speak and publish on yellow fever after his return from Cuba in 1901, receiving honorary degrees from Harvard and the University of Michigan in recognition of his seminal work.  In November 1902, Reed developed what had been for him recurring gastro-intestinal trouble.  This time, however, his appendix ruptured, and surgery came too late to save him from the peritonitis which developed.  He died on November 23, 1902, almost two years to the day from the opening of Camp Lazear and the stunning experimental victory there.  Kean remained a champion of his deceased friend's role in the conquest of yellow fever.  He organized the Walter Reed Memorial Association, to provide support for Reed's family and to build a suitable memorial, and was instrumental in lobbying the United States Congress to establish the Yellow Fever Roll of Honor.  In 1929, Congress mandated the annual publication of the Roll in theArmy Register, and struck a series Congressional Gold Medals saluting the Commission members and the young Americans who bravely suffered experimental yellow fever a generation before.","Sources:","[1] Letter from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence, 18 July 1874, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 01605001.\n      [2] The bibliography of Reed's scientific papers may be found in: Howard Atwood Kelly,Walter Reed and Yellow Fever(New York: McClure, Phillips and Co., 1906), pp. 281-283. Kelly's complete biography of Reed is contained on this Web site.","Jesse William Lazear (May 2, 1866 - September 26, 1900) was a physician who was a member of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission in 1900. Lazear's death from yellow fever at the outset of the commission's work in Cuba would lead to his elevation as a martyr for medical science in the eyes of many during the twentieth century.","\"I rather think I am on the track of the real germ,\" Jesse W. Lazear wrote his wife from Cuba on September 8, 1900.[1] Seventeen days later, the fulminating case of yellow fever Lazear had contracted just over a week after writing Mabel H. Lazear suddenly ended the young scientist's life. He was 34 years old. Unlike so many other yellow fever fatalities, however, this one would lead to a direct and highly successful assault on the disease itself. Yellow fever's ascendancy, endemic in Cuba, was about to be undermined.","Lazear had reported to Camp Columbia, Cuba in February 1900 for duty as an acting assistant surgeon with the U. S. Army Corps stationed on the island. Here he undertook bacteriological study of tropical diseases, particularly malaria and yellow fever, and in May he was named to the Army board charged with \"pursuing scientific investigations with reference to the infectious diseases prevalent on the island of Cuba.\"[2]","These orders placed him officially in the company of Walter Reed, James Carroll, and Aristides Agramonte -- the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission -- though Lazear had already met Reed the preceding March on a project to evaluate the efficacy of electrozone, a disinfectant made from seawater collected off the Cuban coast. While Reed was in Cuba that March, Lazear discussed with him the recent discovery of British scientist Sir Ronald Ross concerning the mosquito vector for malaria. At Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where he was first a medical resident and later in charge of the clinical laboratory, Lazear had followed Ross's accomplishments with great interest, and pursued field work and experimentation on theAnophelesmosquito with fellow Hopkins scientist William S. Thayer. Lazear was thus the only member of the Commission who had experience with mosquito work, and was consequently the most open to the possible verity of Cuban scientist Carlos Juan Finlay's theory of mosquito transmission for yellow fever.","The record is apparently silent as to when Lazear first visited Finlay. Certainly by late June Lazear was beginning to grow mosquito larvae acquired from Finlay's laboratory, the first specimens brought to him by Henry Rose Carter, of the United States Public Health Service.[3] Not long after arriving in Cuba Lazear met Carter, whose own observations on yellow fever strongly suggested an intermediate host in the spread of the disease. However, Army Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg, who organized the Yellow Fever Commission, first charged the board members to investigate the relationship ofBacillus icteroidesto yellow fever -- proposed by the Italian Scientist Giuseppe Sanarelli as the actual cause of the disease. \"Dr. Reed had been in the old discussion over Sanarelli's bacillus and he still works on that subject,\" Lazear wrote his wife in July, \"I am not all interested in it but want to do work which may lead to the discovery of the real organism.\"[4] Soon he would have the opportunity. The relatively quick failure of the Bacillus icteroides inquiry opened the door to what became the ground-breaking mosquito work, and Lazear was well placed to begin.","The project started in earnest on August 1, 1900. In a small pocket notebook Lazear noted the preparatory work of raising and infecting mosquitoes, and subsequently recorded the series of eleven experimental inoculations made from the 11th to the 31st of August, the last two producing cases of full-blown yellow fever. These two positive cases developed from mosquitoes allowed to ripen over a period of 12 days, and this was Lazear's crucial discovery. The epidemiological pattern was thus entirely consistent with Carter's observations of a delay between the primary and secondary outbreaks of yellow fever in an epidemic, and, in addition, explained why Finlay's experiments had been largely unsuccessful -- he had not waited long enough before inoculating his subjects.","Although Lazear never directly admitted to experimenting on himself, when Reed reviewed Lazear's sketchy notations he evidently found entries strongly suggesting Lazear's case was not accidental, as officially reported. Unfortunately, the little notebook so crucial to the preparation of the Commission's famous initial paper,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note[5], vanished from Reed's Washington office after his own untimely death in 1902. Still, Lazear's invaluable contribution to the Commission's victory was widely recognized and elicited tributes from many quarters: \"He was a splendid, brave fellow,\" Reed said of his young colleague, \" and I lament his loss more than words can tell; but his death was not in vain- His name will live in the history of those who have benefited humanity.\" [6] \"His death was a sacrifice to scientific research of the highest character,\" stated General Leonard Wood, military Governor of Cuba.[7] \"Your husband was a martyr in the noblest of causes,\" Dr. L. O. Howard wrote to Mabel Lazear, \"and I am proud to have known him. . . . His work contributed towards one of the greatest discoveries of the century, the results of which will be of invaluable benefit to mankind.\"[8] And so they were. Though Lazear's one-year-old son and newborn daughter never knew their father, they grew up in a world liberated -- almost in its entirety -- from the disease that killed him.","[1] Letter fragment from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 8 September 1900, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 00344001.","Sources:","[2] Military Orders for Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse W. Lazear, 24 May 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number 02019001.\n      [3] \"Conversation between Drs. Carter, Thayer, and Parker,\" 1924, Henry Rose Carter Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, Box 1.\n      [4] Letter fragment from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 15 July 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00334001.\n      [5] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, Jesse W. Lazear,The Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note, Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association Indianapolis, Indiana, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 October 1900.\n      [6] Letter from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence Reed, 6 October 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 02135001.\n      [7] Letter from Leonard Wood to the Adjutant-General, United States Army, November 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00375002.\n      [8] Letter from Leland Ossian Howard to Mabel Houston Lazear, 7 February 1901, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00388001.","Henry Rose Carter (August 25, 1852 - September 14, 1925) was a prominent physician in the U.S. Public Health Service who was a leading authority in the transmission and control of tropical diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria. During his long career as a sanitarian, Carter undertook campaigns to investigate and control the spread of tropical diseases in Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone, the Southeastern United States, and Peru.","Like Walter Reed and Jefferson Randolph Kean, Henry Rose Carter was a native Virginian and a graduate of the University of Virginia. Carter obtained a civil engineering degree from Virginia in 1873 and also undertook post-graduate work in mathematics and applied chemistry the next year. Subsequently, however, Carter's interests turned towards medicine, and he completed a medical degree at the University of Maryland in 1879. The same year Assistant Surgeon Carter joined the Marine Hospital Service -- later the United States Public Health Service -- and the young surgeon rose steadily through the ranks, ultimately attaining the position of Assistant Surgeon General in 1915.","Carter's initial assignments with the Hospital Service placed him at the center of the yellow fever maelstrom. In 1879 he was detailed to Memphis and other Southern cities, then in the throes of a second year of devastating epidemics. Here began, as his colleague T. H. D. Griffitts observed, Carter's \"lifelong interest in the epidemiology and control of yellow fever.\"[1] After several years of clinical practice in various Marine hospitals, Carter resumed a direct confrontation with yellow fever when his orders for duty with the Gulf Coast Maritime Quarantine assigned him to Ship Island, Mississippi, in 1888. Here and at subsequent quarantine station postings around the Gulf, he quietly championed a thorough review and rationalization of quarantine policies, with a view toward establishing uniform regulation, more thorough disinfection of vessels, and minimized interference with naval commerce. Crucial to the success of these activities was Carter's attention to the incubation period of yellow fever, which his on-site observations indicated to vary between 5 and 7 days. At the time the official literature stated with far less precision a variance of between 1 and 14 days; Carter's work consequently greatly increased the efficiency and effectiveness of quarantine operations.","Nevertheless, yellow fever continued to menace the temperate coastline of the United States, and Carter ably directed the Health Service's epidemiological control efforts in numerous threatened regions. In conjunction with this sanitary work for the 1898 season, Carter made detailed notes on the development of yellow fever at Orwood and Taylor, Mississippi. The isolation of these communities enabled him to identify more reliably the phenomenon of a delay between the initial cases of yellow fever in a locality and the subsequent appearance of secondary infection -- a delay two to four times longer than the incubation period of the disease in an infected person. Carter called this interval between the primary and secondary cases \"the period of extrinsic incubation,\" and he defined its \"usual limits . . . [as ranging] from ten to seventeen days.\"[2]","Before he was able to publish his conclusions, Carter took the helm of the quarantine service in war-time Cuba. There, in 1900, he met U. S. Army Yellow Fever Commission member Jesse Lazear. Carter had finally arranged for his paper's publication that year in theNew Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, and gave a draft to Lazear. \"If these dates are correct,\" Carter later recalled Lazear saying, \"it spells a living host.\"[3] The theory of mosquito transmission long advanced by Cuban scientist Carlos J. Finlay began to seem more likely. And indeed it was. The Commission's experiments in 1900-1901 irrefutably proved the mosquito vector and established the extrinsic incubation period at twelve days. Shortly after these successes Reed saluted Carter, \"I know of no one more competent to pass judgment on all that pertains to the subject of yellow fever. You must not forget that your own work in Mississippi did more to impress me with the importance of an intermediate host than everything else put to-gether.\"[4]","Carter's long and distinguished sanitary career took him to the Panama Canal Zone in 1904, where he served as Chief Quarantine Officer and Chief of Hospitals for five years. He undertook detailed investigations and control measures of malaria in North Carolina and elsewhere in the South, and became a founder of the National Malaria Committee. With the support of the Rockefeller Foundation International Health Board, he undertook additional investigation and control measures for yellow fever in Central and South America. His expertise recommended him to the Peruvian government, which named Carter Sanitary Advisor in 1920-1921. Health problems at the end of his life compelled Carter to withdraw from active fieldwork, though he remained a highly valued consultant to the Health Board and a much-beloved and respected teacher for a new generation of sanitarians. Carter closed his career researching and writing the manuscript that his daughter Laura Armistead Carter edited and published posthumously in 1931:Yellow Fever: An Epidemiological and Historical Study of its Place of Origin.[5]","Sources:","[1] T. H. D. Griffitts,Henry Rose Carter: The Scientist and the Man,Southern Medical Journal32 (August 1939) 8: 842.\n      [2] Henry Rose Carter,A Note on the Spread of Yellow Fever in Houses, Extrinsic Incubation,Medical Record59 (15 June 1901) 24: 937.\n      [3] \"Conversation between Drs. Carter, Thayer, and Parker,\" 1924, Henry Rose Carter Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, Box 1.\n      [4] Letter from Walter Reed to Henry Rose Carter, 26 February 1901, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 02447001.\n      [5] Carter, Henry Rose.Yellow Fever: An Epidemiological and Historical Study of its Place of Origin.Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1931.","Jefferson Randolph Kean (June 27, 1860 - September 4, 1950) was a U.S. Army physician who was a leading authority in sanitation, public health, and tropical diseases. Later in his career, Kean would become widely recognized for his role in organizing and administering medical services for the U.S. armed forces during World War I.","\"He possessed one of the keenest, most scholarly minds I've ever encountered,\" recalled Nobel Prize winner Philip S. Hench of Jefferson Randolph Kean. [1] Kean and Hench shared an abiding interest in the work of the United States Army Yellow Fever Commission -- Kean, as a contemporary and supporter, and Hench, as a scholar and scientist intent on accurate historical documentation. On the advice of yellow fever experiment volunteer John J. Moran, Hench first wrote Kean in 1939. From that initial contact developed a close friendship which would last for the remainder of their lives. Kean entrusted Hench not only with numerous period documents, including original letters, accounts, fever charts, and other items, but also with the freely-given counsel and insight of a trusted friend.","Like Walter Reed and Henry Rose Carter before him, Jefferson Randolph Kean was an alumnus of the University of Virginia, completing the medical program there in 1883. Kean joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1884, and after forty years in the service, retired with the rank of Colonel. Congress awarded him a promotion to Brigadier General, retired, in 1930. The early years of Kean's career passed in medical postings in the American West, and no doubt offered him experiences similar to those of Walter Reed, whom he met not on the frontier, but in Florida in 1896. Kean became an expert in tropical diseases and sanitation during his five-year assignment in the Florida tropics, an expertise which served him well over two terms of service later in Cuba. During the Spanish-American War and subsequent U. S. occupation of Cuba, Kean was Chief Surgeon for the Department of Havana, then Superintendent of the Department of Charities -- from 1898 to 1902. After a four-year interlude as an assistant to the Surgeon General in Washington, D.C., Kean again returned to Cuba as an advisor to the Department of Sanitation from 1906-1909.","Kean himself stated: \"Reed and I were good friends before the Yellow Fever Board came to Cuba in June 1900, and [Reed] located himself at Marianao, 8 miles S. W. of Havana,\" to be within the medical and administrative jurisdiction overseen by Kean. [2] The Chief Surgeon did indeed offer significant assistance, and was an early convert to Carlos Finlay's mosquito theory of transmission, which the Yellow Fever Board's experiments ultimately proved true in the late autumn and winter of 1900-1901. As early as October 13, 1900 -- after the Board's preliminary work, but before the final convincing demonstrations -- Kean issued \"Circular No. 8,\" concerning the latest scholarship on the mosquito vector for disease. [3] The circular contained a set of instructions for the entire command on mosquito eradication. Kean subsequently served as quartermaster and financial administrator for the famous series of yellow fever experiments at Camp Lazear and, for the rest of his life, Kean remained a strong proponent of the Commission's conclusions. He worked tirelessly not only to apply them in the field, but also to accord proper public recognition to the Commission's work.","In addition to his career as a sanitarian, Kean organized the department of military relief of the American Red Cross, and during World War One served as Chief of the U. S. Ambulance Service with the French Army and Deputy Chief Surgeon of the American forces. France named him an Officier de la Légion d'Honneur in recognition for these services. Cuban authorities as well offered Kean recognition with the grand cross of the Order of Merit Carlos J. Finlay, and he received both a Distinguished Service Medal from the United States government and the Gorgas Medal from the Association of Military Surgeons. For a decade after his retirement from active duty, Kean edited this last organization's medical journal,The Military Surgeon, and served on the Surgeon General's editorial board for the multi-volume history of the medical department in World War One. A great-grandson of Thomas Jefferson, Kean also took a seat with the government commission established to build the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. He held charter membership in the Walter Reed Memorial Association, and remained active in its affairs until his death in 1950.","Sources:","[1] Telegram from Philip Showalter Hench and Mary Hench to Cornelia Knox Kean, September 5, 1950, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 06501173.\n      [2] Letter from Jefferson Randolph Kean to Philip Showalter Hench, October 31, 1939, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 06282022.\n      [3] Military Orders to Commanding Officers, October 15, 1900, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 02140001.","Philip Showalter Hench (February 28, 1896 - March 30, 1965) was a U.S. physician who in 1950 was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for his role in the discovery of the hormone cortisone. In addition to his medical research, Hench spent almost three decades of his life studying the history of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and became a leading authority in the subject.","Philip Showalter Hench was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the son of Jacob Bixler Hench and Clara Showalter. After attending local schools, Hench entered Lafayette College and graduated from the school 1916 with a Bachelor of Arts. Hench completed his medical degree at the University of Pittsburgh in 1920, and subsequently entered a residency program at St. Francis Hospital, Pittsburgh. His association with the Mayo Clinic began in 1921 as a fellow at the institution. Two years later he would become an assistant at the clinic, and then, in 1926, he would be made the head of its Department of Rheumatic Diseases After pursuing post-graduate study in Germany in 1928-1929, Hench obtained a Masters of Science in Internal Medicine at the University of Minnesota in 1931, and a Doctor of Science degree from Lafayette College in 1940. Hench remained for the duration of his career at the Mayo Clinic, where his life-long passion for meticulous research and analysis brought him the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1950, which he shared with Edward C. Kendall and Tadeus Reichstein, for the discovery of cortisone.","The same persistence and determination present in his professional life is also evident in Hench's research on the U. S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's famous experiments. \"As a physician particularly interested in medical history,\" he stated to experiment volunteer John J. Moran in 1937, \"I have been long interested in the story of the yellow fever work in John J. Moran, Ralph C. Hutchison, Havana.\" [1] So began a remarkable odyssey. At the request of his friend Ralph Cooper Hutchison, then president of Washington and Jefferson College, Hench had written Moran to gather information for the dedication of the College's new chemistry building, named for Commission member and former Washington and Jefferson student Jesse W. Lazear. Hench also began a correspondence with another of the yellow fever experiment's original volunteers, John R. Kissinger. Moran's and Kissinger's recollections proved so intriguing that Hench initially offered to edit and publish them. However, in the course of his research Hench discovered that much general information on the topic was inaccurate. Conflicting assertions concerning the participants and unverified claims by medical and governmental authorities in the United States and Cuba -- often politically motivated -- clouded interpretation of the facts. \"May I suggest,\" Moran consequently urged in 1938, \"that a clearing up of the REED-FINLAY-CONQUEST-OF-YELLOW-FEVER, or an effort to do so, on your part, is a task far more pressing than publishing the Kissinger-Moran stories or memoirs.\" [2] Hench resolved to document every aspect of the \"Conquest of Yellow-Fever\" and to write a much needed accurate and comprehensive history.","For the next two decades, Hench tirelessly combed through public archive collections and personal papers in the United States and Cuba. He met and interviewed surviving participants of the experiments and others associated with the project, as well as family members of the Yellow Fever Commission. He sought out physicians and scientists who had worked with the principal players or who had applied the results in the campaign to eradicate yellow fever. He identified and photographed sites associated with the yellow fever story, and he successfully petitioned politicians in the United States and Cuba to commemorate the work. In the process, Hench became the trusted friend and advisor of many of these same individuals, and they, in turn, presented him with much of the surviving original material for safekeeping.","In short, Hench came to be the world's expert on the yellow fever story and the steward of thousands of original letters and documents. His premature death at age 69 found him still hoping to uncover important missing evidence, his book unwritten. Hench's widow Mary Kahler Hench gave his yellow fever collection to the University of Virginia, Walter Reed's alma mater, and this extensive personal archive forms the most detailed and accurate record available on the Conquest of Yellow Fever.","Sources:","[1] Letter from Philip S. Hench to John J. Moran, 6 July 1937, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 03419001.\n      [2] Letter from John J. Moran to Philip S. Hench, 30 October 1938, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 03476001."],"custodhist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eMaterials from the following series were initially deposited at the University of Virginia's Alderman Library. In 1982, they were moved to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library under the terms of a gift agreement that required the transferral of Mary K. Hench's donation to the library when adequate storage space for the collection could be found there.\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries I. Jesse W. Lazear\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries II. Henry Rose Carter\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries III. Walter Reed\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries IV. Philip Showalter Hench\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries V. Maps\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries VI. Alphabetical files\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries VII. Truby-Kean-Hench\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries VIII. Miscellany\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries IX. Photographs\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries X. Negatives\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries XI. Reprints\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries XIII. Reed family additions\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eSeries XV. Laura Wood\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eMaterials from Series XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center (HAM/TMC) were initially deposited in the HAM/TMC and were a part of the Philip S. Hench papers. In 1991, the materials were transferred from HAM/TMC to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library after both repositories agreed that it would be more appropriate to include them in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Materials from Series XVI. Edward Hook additions were transferred from the Papers of Dr. Edward Watson Hook, Jr. to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection around the late 1990s and early 2000s.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"custodhist_heading_ssm":["Custodial History"],"custodhist_tesim":["Materials from the following series were initially deposited at the University of Virginia's Alderman Library. In 1982, they were moved to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library under the terms of a gift agreement that required the transferral of Mary K. Hench's donation to the library when adequate storage space for the collection could be found there.","Series I. Jesse W. Lazear\n      Series II. Henry Rose Carter\n      Series III. Walter Reed\n      Series IV. Philip Showalter Hench\n      Series V. Maps\n      Series VI. Alphabetical files\n      Series VII. Truby-Kean-Hench\n      Series VIII. Miscellany\n      Series IX. Photographs\n      Series X. Negatives\n      Series XI. Reprints\n      Series XIII. Reed family additions\n      Series XV. Laura Wood","Materials from Series XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center (HAM/TMC) were initially deposited in the HAM/TMC and were a part of the Philip S. Hench papers. In 1991, the materials were transferred from HAM/TMC to the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library after both repositories agreed that it would be more appropriate to include them in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection.","Materials from Series XVI. Edward Hook additions were transferred from the Papers of Dr. Edward Watson Hook, Jr. to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection around the late 1990s and early 2000s."],"odd_html_tesm":["\u003clist type=\"deflist\"\u003e\n      \u003cdefitem\u003e\n        \u003clabel\u003eProcessed by:\u003c/label\u003e\n        \u003citem\u003eHistorical Collections Staff\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003c/defitem\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  "],"odd_heading_ssm":["General"],"odd_tesim":["Processed by:\n        Historical Collections Staff"],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003ePhilip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, 1800-1998, MS-1, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Historical Collections and Services, University of Virginia\u003c/p\u003e  "],"prefercite_tesim":["Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, 1800-1998, MS-1, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Historical Collections and Services, University of Virginia"],"processinfo_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eMary K. Hench's donation arrived in Charlottesville in a number of large crates which were packed much as the collection had been found in Philip Showalter Hench's home in Rochester, Minnesota. Some confusion about Dr. Hench's filing order had been created while the collection was packed for shipping, and thus the Manuscripts Department of the University of Virginia Library found it necessary to perform some sorting and arrangement to make the collection more accessible.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Around 1968, William Bennett Bean was hired by the University of Virginia as a visiting scholar in residence to begin work on a new biography of Walter Reed. Dr. Bean found that the order of the collection was not such that he could readily use it for biographical purposes. He employed a former assistant in the Manuscripts Department, sought and received permission to refile the collection, and had his assistant perform this task. The refiling of the collection had been finished by the fall of 1969, but Bean and his assistant had no time to prepare a finding aid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In the fall of 1969 Donna L. Purvis of the Manuscripts Department staff began writing the first edition of the collection's finding aid. During this project, Mrs. Purvis found some problems with Dr. Bean's description and arrangement of the collection and felt that it was necessary to reprocess parts of it.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Around 1990 staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed additions to the collection donated by Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Between 1999 and 2004, the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library digitized a significant portion of the collection and made the digitized files available to users in an online exhibit. During this project, over 8,000 items from the collection were scanned, transcribed, and described at the item level. Metadata for the digitized items was recorded in XML files using the TEI 2 standard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In 2001, the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed additions that had been made to the collection since 1982, excepting the materials donated by P. Kahler Hench. Staff members also processed significant portions of Mary K. Hench's original donation that had not been described in the first edition of the collection finding aid. This work led to the development of a second edition finding aid that was coded in EAD and ingested into the Virginia Heritage database. This finding aid contained both new metadata and metadata that had been migrated from a Microsoft Access file.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In the 2000s the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed the materials in Series XV. Edward Hook additions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In 2009, staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed Box 154 of the collection.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In 2013, staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library produced a third edition of the finding aid using EAD that merged collection description from four sources (the first edition finding aid, the second edition finding aid, the online exhibit, and the physical collection). When possible, metadata from the existing online exhibit's TEI files and metadata from the second edition finding aid were transformed with XSL and included in the EAD file. However, staff members sometimes found it necessary to create new metadata for the collection. The new finding aid was structured in such a way to facilitate the migration of the collection's digital files and metadata into the University of Virginia's digital repository and make it available to users via the library's online catalog.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"processinfo_heading_ssm":["Processing History"],"processinfo_tesim":["Mary K. Hench's donation arrived in Charlottesville in a number of large crates which were packed much as the collection had been found in Philip Showalter Hench's home in Rochester, Minnesota. Some confusion about Dr. Hench's filing order had been created while the collection was packed for shipping, and thus the Manuscripts Department of the University of Virginia Library found it necessary to perform some sorting and arrangement to make the collection more accessible.","Around 1968, William Bennett Bean was hired by the University of Virginia as a visiting scholar in residence to begin work on a new biography of Walter Reed. Dr. Bean found that the order of the collection was not such that he could readily use it for biographical purposes. He employed a former assistant in the Manuscripts Department, sought and received permission to refile the collection, and had his assistant perform this task. The refiling of the collection had been finished by the fall of 1969, but Bean and his assistant had no time to prepare a finding aid.","In the fall of 1969 Donna L. Purvis of the Manuscripts Department staff began writing the first edition of the collection's finding aid. During this project, Mrs. Purvis found some problems with Dr. Bean's description and arrangement of the collection and felt that it was necessary to reprocess parts of it.","Around 1990 staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed additions to the collection donated by Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench.","Between 1999 and 2004, the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library digitized a significant portion of the collection and made the digitized files available to users in an online exhibit. During this project, over 8,000 items from the collection were scanned, transcribed, and described at the item level. Metadata for the digitized items was recorded in XML files using the TEI 2 standard.","In 2001, the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed additions that had been made to the collection since 1982, excepting the materials donated by P. Kahler Hench. Staff members also processed significant portions of Mary K. Hench's original donation that had not been described in the first edition of the collection finding aid. This work led to the development of a second edition finding aid that was coded in EAD and ingested into the Virginia Heritage database. This finding aid contained both new metadata and metadata that had been migrated from a Microsoft Access file.","In the 2000s the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed the materials in Series XV. Edward Hook additions.","In 2009, staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library processed Box 154 of the collection.","In 2013, staff members in the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library produced a third edition of the finding aid using EAD that merged collection description from four sources (the first edition finding aid, the second edition finding aid, the online exhibit, and the physical collection). When possible, metadata from the existing online exhibit's TEI files and metadata from the second edition finding aid were transformed with XSL and included in the EAD file. However, staff members sometimes found it necessary to create new metadata for the collection. The new finding aid was structured in such a way to facilitate the migration of the collection's digital files and metadata into the University of Virginia's digital repository and make it available to users via the library's online catalog."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection documents the work of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, the legacy of the commission's discoveries, the lives of individuals who were connected to the commission, and twentieth century campaigns to shape public memory of the commission. Items in the collection date from 1800 to 1998, with the bulk of the items dating from 1864 to 1974. A wide range of formats are represented in the collection including, but not limited to the following: articles, artifacts, audio cassettes, bills (legislative records), biographies, charts (graphic documents), correspondence, diaries, editorials, interviews, journals (periodicals), magazines, maps, medical records, military records, negatives (photographic), notes, photographs, reports, reprints, scrapbooks, and speeches. Unique materials in the collection are supplemented with copies of original documents and photographs housed in other institutions (e.g. the U.S. National Archives). All of these materials are arranged in 16 series: I. Jesse W. Lazear, II. Henry Rose Carter, III. Walter Reed, IV. Philip Showalter Hench, V. Maps, VI. Alphabetical files, VII. Truby-Kean-Hench, VIII. Miscellany, IX. Photographs, X. Photographic negatives, XI. Reprints, XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions, XIII. Reed family additions, XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions, XV. Laura Wood, and XVI. Edward Hook additions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series I. Jesse W. Lazear consists of materials relating to Lazear that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1800 to 1956 with the bulk of the items dating from 1863 to 1943. Much of the series consists of the correspondence of Jesse W. Lazear and his wife Mabel H. Lazear. Jesse's correspondence dates from his time as a student at Johns Hopkins University to his death in 1900. Researchers can learn a great deal about Jesse from these letters, including his relationships with friends and family, his educational background, and his professional life. Mabel's correspondence dates from the time she met Jesse to her death in 1946. This correspondence primarily concern her husband's historical legacy and a campaign to secure a pension from the U.S. government for herself and her family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In addition to Jesse and Mabel's correspondence, the series contains other materials relating to them and their families including, but not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe diaries documenting the travels of Jesse and Mabel's mothers in Europe;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence of other Lazear family members (e.g. Jesse's parents);\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003egenealogical summaries and tables relating to the Lazear family;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003elegal documents (e.g. wills, certificates, deeds);\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003emilitary records relating to Jesse;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecertificates, reports, and other materials documenting Jesse's educational background and achievements;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eobituaries;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecopies of congressional bills and reports concerning the provision of a federal pension for Mabel H. Lazear;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enewspaper articles;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ea microscope and sets of microscope slides owned by Jesse;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand a medical chart that shows the progression of the yellow fever infection that killed Jesse.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries II. Henry Rose Carter consists of materials relating to Henry Rose Carter that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1880 to 1932 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1883 to 1932. The series is particularly rich in materials that document Henry Rose Carter's professional activities in the last eleven years of his life (1914-1925). These materials include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence with colleagues in the medical and scientific community including Rupert E. Blue, Hideyo Noguchi, Henry Hanson, Joseph A. LePrince, Frederick F. Russell, T.H.D. Griffitts, and Lunsford D. Fricks;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003escientific, medical, and government reports relating to the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria in North America, South America, and Africa;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ejournal articles concerning the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eresearch notes written by Henry Rose Carter;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand photographs of Henry Rose Carter at work and with professional colleagues.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries II. also contains correspondence between Henry Rose Carter and members of his family that date from 1880 to 1925. The family members with whom Henry corresponds most frequently in this series are his mother, Emma Coleman Carter; his wife, Laura Eugenia Hook Carter; his daughter, Laura Armistead Carter; and his son, Henry Rose Carter, Jr. These letters are not only a rich source of information about Carter's personal views and family life, they also provide valuable insights into his professional activities such as his experiences aboard vessels and in ports while working for the U.S. Marine Hospital Service and his public health work in Cuba, Panama, and Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In addition to the materials that were produced during Henry Rose Carter's lifetime, the Series II. contains materials that were produced between 1925 and 1940 (after Henry Rose Carter's death) including, but not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecopies of obituaries for Henry Rose Carter;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003econdolence letters for Henry Rose Carter's family after Henry's death;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand the correspondence of Laura Armistead Carter relating to her father and other members of the Carter family.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries III. Walter Reed consists of materials that document the life of Walter Reed as well as the work and legacy of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission. Items in the series date from 1806 to around 1955 with the bulk of the items dating from 1874 to 1936. The series is particularly rich in materials that document the professional and personal life of Walter Reed from 1874 to his death in 1902. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence between Walter Reed and members of his immediate family that cover a wide range of topics including Reed's courtship of Emilie Lawrence Reed, family life, Walter Reed's work in the Western United States, and Walter Reed's work in Cuba;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003emilitary records relating to Walter Reed including military orders for Reed, Reed's performance reviews, and reports of Reed's work for army officials;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eWalter Reed's correspondence with professional colleagues including members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, military doctors, and medical researchers interested in the study of yellow fever;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003emedical records (e.g. fever charts of experiment participants), military orders, administrative records, reports, and publications documenting the results of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's experiments in Cuba;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003earticles announcing the death of Walter Reed;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand the shoulder boards from Walter Reed's U.S. Army uniform.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the above items, Series III. contains materials that document campaigns, spanning from 1902 to 1937, to publicly honor members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and those who participated in the commission's experiments. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003earticles and editorials relating to efforts to memorialize and provide pensions for members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and those who participated in the commission's experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ebiographical sketches of members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003erecords relating to the Walter Reed Memorial Association (e.g. correspondence, donor lists);\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecopies of Congressional bills and resolutions to honor members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand letters, reviews, and other materials relating to the production of Sidney Coe Howard's play,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eYellow Jack\u003c/title\u003e.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eFinally, Series III. also consists of materials that document the history of yellow fever during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eitems (e.g. correspondence, reports, reviews, and articles) relating to U.S. efforts to eradicate yellow fever in the Panama Canal Zone;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ematerials (e.g. correspondence, reports, and articles) documenting early twentieth century efforts to eradicate yellow fever in Peru;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003escientific reports and publications related to the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand newspaper articles describing various outbreaks of yellow fever epidemics.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries IV. Philip Showalter Hench primarily consists of materials that Hench created or collected while researching the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission. Items in this series date from around 1850 to around 1865 with the bulk of the items dating from 1937 to 1960. Researchers who are studying the yellow fever experiments will be particularly interested in the materials (e.g. interviews, autobiographies) that document first-hand accounts of the events surrounding the experiments. Other researchers may be interested in items that document Hench's role in shaping public memory of the commission and its experiments. The materials in this series include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eHench's correspondence and interviews with participants in the yellow fever experiments and their families including: Emilie Lawrence Reed, Emilie M. (Blossom) Reed, Walter Lawrence Reed, John J. Moran, Albert E. Truby, Jefferson Randolph Kean, John H. Andrus, and John R. Kissinger;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eautobiographical accounts of the experiment's participants and their families;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enotes, reports, correspondence and other materials relating to Hench's search for the original site of Camp Lazear in Cuba;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence with Cuban government officials and members of the scientific community relating to Hench's campaign to build a Camp Lazear memorial;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence and other materials relating to ceremonies honoring Jesse W. Lazear at Washington and Jefferson College;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enewspaper articles, magazine articles, and other printed matter concerning the yellow fever experiments and its participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003edrafts of speeches and presentations Hench gave on the history of the yellow fever experiments to various audiences;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003emeeting minutes and other materials that document Hench's relationship with and participation in the Walter Reed Memorial Association;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003escripts for radio programs relating to the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enotes, outlines, lists, correspondence, and other materials that document Hench's research about the yellow fever experiments and a book he had planned to write on the subject;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand the gold medal that Congress posthumously awarded to Walter Reed for his work with yellow fever.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries V. Maps primarily consists of maps and floor plans that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1846 to around 1960 with the bulk of the items dating from 1899 to 1951. The maps and floor plans often include annotations and illustrate a wide range of locations including, but not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eHavana and its environs;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eCuba;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003esites associated with the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand military installations in the United States.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the maps and floor plans, Series V. also consists of a few newspaper and magazine clippings that contain information relating to the yellow fever experiments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series VI. Alphabetical files primarily consists of materials that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1860 to around 1966 with the bulk of the items dating from 1940 to 1956. All of these items have been arranged thematically into biographical files. Each file contains materials created by or relating to people who were either involved with the yellow fever experiments or aided Philip Showalter Hench in his research of the subject. These people include, but are not limited to: John J. Moran, Carlos E. Finlay, Laura Wood Roper, Mabel Lazear, Clara Maas, John R. Kissinger, Roger Post Ames, James C. Carroll, and Carlos J. Finlay. The files are arranged alphabetically by the last names of the individuals listed on the files and it is unclear whether the overall arrangement was made by Hench or by staff members at the University of Virginia. The biographical files contain a wide range of different materials that pertain to the individuals listed on the files. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence between Philip Showalter Hench and the individuals;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eother correspondence;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enewspaper and magazine clippings;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eunpublished manuscripts;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ebiographical and autobiographical accounts;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003etranscripts of oral history interviews that were conducted by Philip Showalter Hench;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand copies of medical charts for volunteers in the yellow fever experiments that shows the progression of the disease.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the materials that Hench created or collected during his lifetime, the biographical files in Series VI. also contain items that were added by staff at the University of Virginia Library during the late 1960s and early 1970s.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series VII. Truby-Kean-Hench primarily consists of materials relating to Albert E. Truby and Jefferson Randolph Kean that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1879 to around 1960 with the bulk of the items dating from 1900 to 1954. These items include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence of Jefferson Randolph Kean dating from 1900 to 1950 that relates to his personal life, the yellow fever experiments, public health initiatives, his publications, the legacy of the yellow fever experiments, Kean's work in World War I, and other topics;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ePhilip Showalter Hench's correspondence with people related to the yellow fever experiments, particularly Albert E. Truby and Jefferson Randolph Kean primarily from between 1940 and 1955;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ea scrapbook and other materials that relate to Truby's book,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eMemoir of Walter Reed: the Yellow Fever Episode\u003c/title\u003e;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand Philip Showalter Hench's interviews and questionnaires for Kean and Truby from the 1940s.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the materials relating to Kean and Truby, Series VII. also includes the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enotes from Philip Showalter Hench's research of the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe recollections, autobiographies, and reports of other people involved with the yellow fever experiments including John Andrus and A.S. Pinto;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003earticles and clippings related to the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ea short biography of Lemuel S. Reed;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand a sketch Philip Showalter Hench made of a proposed museum at the Camp Lazear site.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries VIII. Miscellany consists of oversize and miscellaneous materials in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection that were, for various reasons, not included in any of the other series in the collection. Items in this series date from around 1849 to 1982 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1885 to 1974. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003einformed consent agreements for volunteers in the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ediplomas and certificates for Walter Reed and Jesse W. Lazear;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecopies and sketches of Dean Cornwell's painting,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eConquerors of Yellow Fever\u003c/title\u003e;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eartifacts, including a wooden board from Camp Lazear and a U.S. flag;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecopies of correspondence, reports, medical records, and military orders from the U.S. National Archives relating to the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003emanuscripts and related notes for published works and research relating to Walter Reed and the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence of Philip Showalter Hench from circa 1940 to 1966;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003earticles and clippings relating to the yellow fever experiments, the experiments' participants, and the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence of Atcheson Laughlin Hench and members of the University of Virginia community relating to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eitems that document the provenance and custodial history of some materials in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ephotographs relating to Cuba and the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enotes for photographs and photographic negatives housed in Series IX. and Series X. of this collection.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries IX. Photographs consists primarily of photographs that Philip Showalter Hench created and collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1846 to around 1966 with the bulk of the items dating from around 1870 to around 1960. The subjects shown in the photographs include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ephysicians, military personnel, nurses, and volunteers associated with the experiments including Walter Reed, Jesse W. Lazear, Jefferson Randolph Kean, and Aristides Agramonte;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003efamily members of people associated with the yellow fever experiments including their spouses, children, and grandchildren.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eCamp Lazear, Camp Columbia, and other locations in Cuba related to the yellow fever experiments between 1900 and 1960;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe U.S.S.\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eMaine\u003c/emph\u003eand the Spanish-American War;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eaerial views of Havana, Cuba and its environs from the 1940s and 1950s;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003escenes of daily life in Cuba generally from between 1898 and 1960;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe 1952 dedication of the Camp Lazear National Monument in Cuba;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe creation and unveiling of Dean Cornwell's painting,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eConquerors of Yellow Fever\u003c/title\u003e;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003estill scenes from the movies,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eYellow Jack\u003c/title\u003eand\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eJezebel\u003c/title\u003e;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eother events and works of art commemorating the work of the participants in the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003edocuments and maps that Philip Showalter Hench copied for his research;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand Philip Showalter Hench and his family.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries IX. also includes a watercolor that was painted by Emilie Lawrence Reed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series X. Photographic negatives consists of a mix of original and copy negatives that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Although the original images recorded on the negatives date from between the 1860s and the 1960s, it appears that the negatives themselves were produced during a narrower time frame, most likely between 1930 and 1966.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The negatives in Series X. record images associated with the yellow fever experiments and many of them are related to photographic prints found in Series VIII. Where a match between a negative and a print from these series has been made, the negative number has been written on the folder of the print in the physical collection. Finally, the negatives are generally arranged in numerical order by identification numbers that were most likely assigned by Philip Showalter Hench.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series XI. Reprints consists of reprints and photocopies of journal articles, book extracts, book reviews and other published works that were primarily collected by Philip Showalter Hench while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from 1856 to 1971 and cover a wide range of topics related to the study and eradication of yellow fever, including, but not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe results of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work in Cuba;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ebiographical accounts of various people who had an association with the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe research of people associated with the experiments including Walter Reed, Jesse W. Lazear, Aristides Agramonte, and James Carroll;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003escientific and medical research related to yellow fever and malaria;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand events honoring the work of those involved with the yellow fever experiments.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions consists of materials that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1901 to around 1966. These materials were originally a part of the Philip S. Hench papers in the John P. McGovern Historical Collections and Research Center at the Texas Medical Center Library, but they were transferred to the University of Virginia in 1991. These items include, but are not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence between Philip Showalter Hench and people connected with the yellow fever experiments including John J. Moran and Walter Reed's children;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enewspaper clippings relating to the death or commemoration of individuals associated with the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ephotographs of the Camp Lazear Memorial, everyday scenes in Cuba, and John J. Moran;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand journal articles, booklets, and other printed matter relating to the yellow fever experiments and its participants.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries XIII. Reed family additions consists of materials relating to the yellow fever experiments that several different donors gave to the University of Virginia. Items in the series date from around 1850 to 1967 with the bulk of the items dating from 1868 to 1949. The largest portion of the series is comprised of correspondence written by Walter Reed and his family between 1877 and 1902 that provide insights into their relationships and personal lives.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In addition to the Reed family's correspondence, the series also contains other materials relating to the Reed family and the yellow fever experiments including, but not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ea flag that was flown over Camp Lazear;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003enewspaper clippings and articles relating to the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ea chemistry notebook that was owned by Walter Reed;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence of and works by Philip Showalter Hench;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ean inventory of materials in Series XIII. and information about their accession into the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand materials from an exhibit on the yellow fever experiments that was hosted in Alderman Library at the University of Virginia.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions consists of original and photocopied materials that Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench, donated to the University of Virginia in 1988 and 1989. Items in the series date from around 1860 to 1965 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1898 to 1965. Most of these items were collected or created by Philip Showalter Hench while researching the yellow fever experiments. These items include the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ethe correspondence of experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence between Philip Showalter Hench and the experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecorrespondence between Philip Showalter Hench and families of the experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003epress clippings relating to the experiments and the experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eoral history interviews conducted by Philip Showalter Hench;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003escientific articles related to the study of yellow fever;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ephotographs of Havana, Camp Columbia, and Camp Lazear;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003egenealogical tables and summaries for the family of Jesse W. Lazear;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eautobiographical accounts written by experiment participants;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eunpublished manuscripts;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eartifacts (e.g. a wooden board) from Camp Lazear;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ePhilip Showalter Hench's research notes.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eSeries XIV. also contains correspondence and financial records that record the transfer of collection items from the Reed family to Philip Showalter Hench and later from the Hench family to the University of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series XV. Laura Wood primarily consists of Laura Wood's correspondence relating to her research for a Walter Reed biography that she wrote. The series also includes, but is not limited to the following materials:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ephotocopies of two letters written by Walter Reed;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ea journal article by George Sternberg;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand a short work that Laura Wood wrote about Walter Reed entitled,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eWalter Reed and yellow Fever\u003c/title\u003e.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eItems in Series XV. date from 1875 to 1946 with the bulk of the items dating from 1941 to 1946.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Series XVI. Edward Hook additions consists of copies of letters, articles, and photographs relating to the yellow fever experiments that had been collected by Edward W. Hook, Jr, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia. The bulk of this series is comprised of copies of a small collection of James Carroll's correspondence. The original versions of Carroll's correspondence are not housed at the University of Virginia. In addition to the Carroll letters, this series also includes, but is not limited to the following:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ephotographs of Walter Reed and others related to the yellow fever experiments;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003ecopies of some of Theodore E. Woodward's works relating to James Carroll and yellow fever;\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eand exhibition materials.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eItems in Series XVI. date from around 1880 to around 1998 with the bulk of the items dating from 1898 to 1901.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content Information"],"scopecontent_tesim":["The Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection documents the work of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, the legacy of the commission's discoveries, the lives of individuals who were connected to the commission, and twentieth century campaigns to shape public memory of the commission. Items in the collection date from 1800 to 1998, with the bulk of the items dating from 1864 to 1974. A wide range of formats are represented in the collection including, but not limited to the following: articles, artifacts, audio cassettes, bills (legislative records), biographies, charts (graphic documents), correspondence, diaries, editorials, interviews, journals (periodicals), magazines, maps, medical records, military records, negatives (photographic), notes, photographs, reports, reprints, scrapbooks, and speeches. Unique materials in the collection are supplemented with copies of original documents and photographs housed in other institutions (e.g. the U.S. National Archives). All of these materials are arranged in 16 series: I. Jesse W. Lazear, II. Henry Rose Carter, III. Walter Reed, IV. Philip Showalter Hench, V. Maps, VI. Alphabetical files, VII. Truby-Kean-Hench, VIII. Miscellany, IX. Photographs, X. Photographic negatives, XI. Reprints, XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions, XIII. Reed family additions, XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions, XV. Laura Wood, and XVI. Edward Hook additions.","Series I. Jesse W. Lazear consists of materials relating to Lazear that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1800 to 1956 with the bulk of the items dating from 1863 to 1943. Much of the series consists of the correspondence of Jesse W. Lazear and his wife Mabel H. Lazear. Jesse's correspondence dates from his time as a student at Johns Hopkins University to his death in 1900. Researchers can learn a great deal about Jesse from these letters, including his relationships with friends and family, his educational background, and his professional life. Mabel's correspondence dates from the time she met Jesse to her death in 1946. This correspondence primarily concern her husband's historical legacy and a campaign to secure a pension from the U.S. government for herself and her family.","In addition to Jesse and Mabel's correspondence, the series contains other materials relating to them and their families including, but not limited to the following:","the diaries documenting the travels of Jesse and Mabel's mothers in Europe;\n      correspondence of other Lazear family members (e.g. Jesse's parents);\n      genealogical summaries and tables relating to the Lazear family;\n      legal documents (e.g. wills, certificates, deeds);\n      military records relating to Jesse;\n      certificates, reports, and other materials documenting Jesse's educational background and achievements;\n      obituaries;\n      copies of congressional bills and reports concerning the provision of a federal pension for Mabel H. Lazear;\n      newspaper articles;\n      a microscope and sets of microscope slides owned by Jesse;\n      and a medical chart that shows the progression of the yellow fever infection that killed Jesse.","Series II. Henry Rose Carter consists of materials relating to Henry Rose Carter that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1880 to 1932 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1883 to 1932. The series is particularly rich in materials that document Henry Rose Carter's professional activities in the last eleven years of his life (1914-1925). These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence with colleagues in the medical and scientific community including Rupert E. Blue, Hideyo Noguchi, Henry Hanson, Joseph A. LePrince, Frederick F. Russell, T.H.D. Griffitts, and Lunsford D. Fricks;\n      scientific, medical, and government reports relating to the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria in North America, South America, and Africa;\n      journal articles concerning the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria;\n      research notes written by Henry Rose Carter;\n      and photographs of Henry Rose Carter at work and with professional colleagues.","Series II. also contains correspondence between Henry Rose Carter and members of his family that date from 1880 to 1925. The family members with whom Henry corresponds most frequently in this series are his mother, Emma Coleman Carter; his wife, Laura Eugenia Hook Carter; his daughter, Laura Armistead Carter; and his son, Henry Rose Carter, Jr. These letters are not only a rich source of information about Carter's personal views and family life, they also provide valuable insights into his professional activities such as his experiences aboard vessels and in ports while working for the U.S. Marine Hospital Service and his public health work in Cuba, Panama, and Peru.","In addition to the materials that were produced during Henry Rose Carter's lifetime, the Series II. contains materials that were produced between 1925 and 1940 (after Henry Rose Carter's death) including, but not limited to the following:","copies of obituaries for Henry Rose Carter;\n      condolence letters for Henry Rose Carter's family after Henry's death;\n      and the correspondence of Laura Armistead Carter relating to her father and other members of the Carter family.","Series III. Walter Reed consists of materials that document the life of Walter Reed as well as the work and legacy of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission. Items in the series date from 1806 to around 1955 with the bulk of the items dating from 1874 to 1936. The series is particularly rich in materials that document the professional and personal life of Walter Reed from 1874 to his death in 1902. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence between Walter Reed and members of his immediate family that cover a wide range of topics including Reed's courtship of Emilie Lawrence Reed, family life, Walter Reed's work in the Western United States, and Walter Reed's work in Cuba;\n      military records relating to Walter Reed including military orders for Reed, Reed's performance reviews, and reports of Reed's work for army officials;\n      Walter Reed's correspondence with professional colleagues including members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, military doctors, and medical researchers interested in the study of yellow fever;\n      medical records (e.g. fever charts of experiment participants), military orders, administrative records, reports, and publications documenting the results of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's experiments in Cuba;\n      articles announcing the death of Walter Reed;\n      and the shoulder boards from Walter Reed's U.S. Army uniform.","In addition to the above items, Series III. contains materials that document campaigns, spanning from 1902 to 1937, to publicly honor members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and those who participated in the commission's experiments. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","articles and editorials relating to efforts to memorialize and provide pensions for members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and those who participated in the commission's experiments;\n      biographical sketches of members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and experiment participants;\n      records relating to the Walter Reed Memorial Association (e.g. correspondence, donor lists);\n      copies of Congressional bills and resolutions to honor members of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and experiment participants;\n      and letters, reviews, and other materials relating to the production of Sidney Coe Howard's play,Yellow Jack.","Finally, Series III. also consists of materials that document the history of yellow fever during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","items (e.g. correspondence, reports, reviews, and articles) relating to U.S. efforts to eradicate yellow fever in the Panama Canal Zone;\n      materials (e.g. correspondence, reports, and articles) documenting early twentieth century efforts to eradicate yellow fever in Peru;\n      scientific reports and publications related to the study and eradication of yellow fever and malaria;\n      and newspaper articles describing various outbreaks of yellow fever epidemics.","Series IV. Philip Showalter Hench primarily consists of materials that Hench created or collected while researching the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission. Items in this series date from around 1850 to around 1865 with the bulk of the items dating from 1937 to 1960. Researchers who are studying the yellow fever experiments will be particularly interested in the materials (e.g. interviews, autobiographies) that document first-hand accounts of the events surrounding the experiments. Other researchers may be interested in items that document Hench's role in shaping public memory of the commission and its experiments. The materials in this series include, but are not limited to the following:","Hench's correspondence and interviews with participants in the yellow fever experiments and their families including: Emilie Lawrence Reed, Emilie M. (Blossom) Reed, Walter Lawrence Reed, John J. Moran, Albert E. Truby, Jefferson Randolph Kean, John H. Andrus, and John R. Kissinger;\n      autobiographical accounts of the experiment's participants and their families;\n      notes, reports, correspondence and other materials relating to Hench's search for the original site of Camp Lazear in Cuba;\n      correspondence with Cuban government officials and members of the scientific community relating to Hench's campaign to build a Camp Lazear memorial;\n      correspondence and other materials relating to ceremonies honoring Jesse W. Lazear at Washington and Jefferson College;\n      newspaper articles, magazine articles, and other printed matter concerning the yellow fever experiments and its participants;\n      drafts of speeches and presentations Hench gave on the history of the yellow fever experiments to various audiences;\n      meeting minutes and other materials that document Hench's relationship with and participation in the Walter Reed Memorial Association;\n      scripts for radio programs relating to the yellow fever experiments;\n      notes, outlines, lists, correspondence, and other materials that document Hench's research about the yellow fever experiments and a book he had planned to write on the subject;\n      and the gold medal that Congress posthumously awarded to Walter Reed for his work with yellow fever.","Series V. Maps primarily consists of maps and floor plans that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1846 to around 1960 with the bulk of the items dating from 1899 to 1951. The maps and floor plans often include annotations and illustrate a wide range of locations including, but not limited to the following:","Havana and its environs;\n      Cuba;\n      sites associated with the yellow fever experiments;\n      and military installations in the United States.","In addition to the maps and floor plans, Series V. also consists of a few newspaper and magazine clippings that contain information relating to the yellow fever experiments.","Series VI. Alphabetical files primarily consists of materials that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1860 to around 1966 with the bulk of the items dating from 1940 to 1956. All of these items have been arranged thematically into biographical files. Each file contains materials created by or relating to people who were either involved with the yellow fever experiments or aided Philip Showalter Hench in his research of the subject. These people include, but are not limited to: John J. Moran, Carlos E. Finlay, Laura Wood Roper, Mabel Lazear, Clara Maas, John R. Kissinger, Roger Post Ames, James C. Carroll, and Carlos J. Finlay. The files are arranged alphabetically by the last names of the individuals listed on the files and it is unclear whether the overall arrangement was made by Hench or by staff members at the University of Virginia. The biographical files contain a wide range of different materials that pertain to the individuals listed on the files. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and the individuals;\n      other correspondence;\n      newspaper and magazine clippings;\n      unpublished manuscripts;\n      biographical and autobiographical accounts;\n      transcripts of oral history interviews that were conducted by Philip Showalter Hench;\n      and copies of medical charts for volunteers in the yellow fever experiments that shows the progression of the disease.","In addition to the materials that Hench created or collected during his lifetime, the biographical files in Series VI. also contain items that were added by staff at the University of Virginia Library during the late 1960s and early 1970s.","Series VII. Truby-Kean-Hench primarily consists of materials relating to Albert E. Truby and Jefferson Randolph Kean that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1879 to around 1960 with the bulk of the items dating from 1900 to 1954. These items include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence of Jefferson Randolph Kean dating from 1900 to 1950 that relates to his personal life, the yellow fever experiments, public health initiatives, his publications, the legacy of the yellow fever experiments, Kean's work in World War I, and other topics;\n      Philip Showalter Hench's correspondence with people related to the yellow fever experiments, particularly Albert E. Truby and Jefferson Randolph Kean primarily from between 1940 and 1955;\n      a scrapbook and other materials that relate to Truby's book,Memoir of Walter Reed: the Yellow Fever Episode;\n      and Philip Showalter Hench's interviews and questionnaires for Kean and Truby from the 1940s.","In addition to the materials relating to Kean and Truby, Series VII. also includes the following:","notes from Philip Showalter Hench's research of the yellow fever experiments;\n      the recollections, autobiographies, and reports of other people involved with the yellow fever experiments including John Andrus and A.S. Pinto;\n      articles and clippings related to the yellow fever experiments;\n      a short biography of Lemuel S. Reed;\n      and a sketch Philip Showalter Hench made of a proposed museum at the Camp Lazear site.","Series VIII. Miscellany consists of oversize and miscellaneous materials in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection that were, for various reasons, not included in any of the other series in the collection. Items in this series date from around 1849 to 1982 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1885 to 1974. These materials include, but are not limited to the following:","informed consent agreements for volunteers in the yellow fever experiments;\n      diplomas and certificates for Walter Reed and Jesse W. Lazear;\n      copies and sketches of Dean Cornwell's painting,Conquerors of Yellow Fever;\n      artifacts, including a wooden board from Camp Lazear and a U.S. flag;\n      copies of correspondence, reports, medical records, and military orders from the U.S. National Archives relating to the yellow fever experiments;\n      manuscripts and related notes for published works and research relating to Walter Reed and the yellow fever experiments;\n      correspondence of Philip Showalter Hench from circa 1940 to 1966;\n      articles and clippings relating to the yellow fever experiments, the experiments' participants, and the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\n      correspondence of Atcheson Laughlin Hench and members of the University of Virginia community relating to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\n      items that document the provenance and custodial history of some materials in the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed yellow fever collection;\n      photographs relating to Cuba and the yellow fever experiments;\n      notes for photographs and photographic negatives housed in Series IX. and Series X. of this collection.","Series IX. Photographs consists primarily of photographs that Philip Showalter Hench created and collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1846 to around 1966 with the bulk of the items dating from around 1870 to around 1960. The subjects shown in the photographs include, but are not limited to the following:","physicians, military personnel, nurses, and volunteers associated with the experiments including Walter Reed, Jesse W. Lazear, Jefferson Randolph Kean, and Aristides Agramonte;\n      family members of people associated with the yellow fever experiments including their spouses, children, and grandchildren.\n      Camp Lazear, Camp Columbia, and other locations in Cuba related to the yellow fever experiments between 1900 and 1960;\n      the U.S.S.Maineand the Spanish-American War;\n      aerial views of Havana, Cuba and its environs from the 1940s and 1950s;\n      scenes of daily life in Cuba generally from between 1898 and 1960;\n      the 1952 dedication of the Camp Lazear National Monument in Cuba;\n      the creation and unveiling of Dean Cornwell's painting,Conquerors of Yellow Fever;\n      still scenes from the movies,Yellow JackandJezebel;\n      other events and works of art commemorating the work of the participants in the yellow fever experiments;\n      documents and maps that Philip Showalter Hench copied for his research;\n      and Philip Showalter Hench and his family.","Series IX. also includes a watercolor that was painted by Emilie Lawrence Reed.","Series X. Photographic negatives consists of a mix of original and copy negatives that Philip Showalter Hench collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Although the original images recorded on the negatives date from between the 1860s and the 1960s, it appears that the negatives themselves were produced during a narrower time frame, most likely between 1930 and 1966.","The negatives in Series X. record images associated with the yellow fever experiments and many of them are related to photographic prints found in Series VIII. Where a match between a negative and a print from these series has been made, the negative number has been written on the folder of the print in the physical collection. Finally, the negatives are generally arranged in numerical order by identification numbers that were most likely assigned by Philip Showalter Hench.","Series XI. Reprints consists of reprints and photocopies of journal articles, book extracts, book reviews and other published works that were primarily collected by Philip Showalter Hench while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from 1856 to 1971 and cover a wide range of topics related to the study and eradication of yellow fever, including, but not limited to the following:","the results of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work in Cuba;\n      biographical accounts of various people who had an association with the yellow fever experiments;\n      the research of people associated with the experiments including Walter Reed, Jesse W. Lazear, Aristides Agramonte, and James Carroll;\n      scientific and medical research related to yellow fever and malaria;\n      and events honoring the work of those involved with the yellow fever experiments.","Series XII. Houston Academy of Medicine/Texas Medical Center additions consists of materials that Philip Showalter Hench created or collected while researching the yellow fever experiments. Items in this series date from around 1901 to around 1966. These materials were originally a part of the Philip S. Hench papers in the John P. McGovern Historical Collections and Research Center at the Texas Medical Center Library, but they were transferred to the University of Virginia in 1991. These items include, but are not limited to the following:","correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and people connected with the yellow fever experiments including John J. Moran and Walter Reed's children;\n      newspaper clippings relating to the death or commemoration of individuals associated with the yellow fever experiments;\n      photographs of the Camp Lazear Memorial, everyday scenes in Cuba, and John J. Moran;\n      and journal articles, booklets, and other printed matter relating to the yellow fever experiments and its participants.","Series XIII. Reed family additions consists of materials relating to the yellow fever experiments that several different donors gave to the University of Virginia. Items in the series date from around 1850 to 1967 with the bulk of the items dating from 1868 to 1949. The largest portion of the series is comprised of correspondence written by Walter Reed and his family between 1877 and 1902 that provide insights into their relationships and personal lives.","In addition to the Reed family's correspondence, the series also contains other materials relating to the Reed family and the yellow fever experiments including, but not limited to the following:","a flag that was flown over Camp Lazear;\n      newspaper clippings and articles relating to the yellow fever experiments;\n      a chemistry notebook that was owned by Walter Reed;\n      correspondence of and works by Philip Showalter Hench;\n      an inventory of materials in Series XIII. and information about their accession into the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library;\n      and materials from an exhibit on the yellow fever experiments that was hosted in Alderman Library at the University of Virginia.","Series XIV. P. Kahler Hench additions consists of original and photocopied materials that Philip Showalter Hench's son, P. Kahler Hench, donated to the University of Virginia in 1988 and 1989. Items in the series date from around 1860 to 1965 with the bulk of the materials dating from 1898 to 1965. Most of these items were collected or created by Philip Showalter Hench while researching the yellow fever experiments. These items include the following:","the correspondence of experiment participants;\n      correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and the experiment participants;\n      correspondence between Philip Showalter Hench and families of the experiment participants;\n      press clippings relating to the experiments and the experiment participants;\n      oral history interviews conducted by Philip Showalter Hench;\n      scientific articles related to the study of yellow fever;\n      photographs of Havana, Camp Columbia, and Camp Lazear;\n      genealogical tables and summaries for the family of Jesse W. Lazear;\n      autobiographical accounts written by experiment participants;\n      unpublished manuscripts;\n      artifacts (e.g. a wooden board) from Camp Lazear;\n      Philip Showalter Hench's research notes.","Series XIV. also contains correspondence and financial records that record the transfer of collection items from the Reed family to Philip Showalter Hench and later from the Hench family to the University of Virginia.","Series XV. Laura Wood primarily consists of Laura Wood's correspondence relating to her research for a Walter Reed biography that she wrote. The series also includes, but is not limited to the following materials:","photocopies of two letters written by Walter Reed;\n      a journal article by George Sternberg;\n      and a short work that Laura Wood wrote about Walter Reed entitled,Walter Reed and yellow Fever.","Items in Series XV. date from 1875 to 1946 with the bulk of the items dating from 1941 to 1946.","Series XVI. Edward Hook additions consists of copies of letters, articles, and photographs relating to the yellow fever experiments that had been collected by Edward W. Hook, Jr, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia. The bulk of this series is comprised of copies of a small collection of James Carroll's correspondence. The original versions of Carroll's correspondence are not housed at the University of Virginia. In addition to the Carroll letters, this series also includes, but is not limited to the following:","photographs of Walter Reed and others related to the yellow fever experiments;\n      copies of some of Theodore E. Woodward's works relating to James Carroll and yellow fever;\n      and exhibition materials.","Items in Series XVI. date from around 1880 to around 1998 with the bulk of the items dating from 1898 to 1901."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eCopyright restrictions may apply for some materials in the collection.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Copyright Status"],"userestrict_tesim":["Copyright restrictions may apply for some materials in the collection."],"abstract_html_tesm":["\u003cabstract id=\"aspace_98fe81a152b4be0b7388b1814ffaf4bd\"\u003eThe Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection documents the work of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, the legacy of the commission's discoveries, the lives of individuals who were connected to the commission, and twentieth century campaigns to shape public memory of the commission. Items in the collection date from 1800 to 1998, with the bulk of the items dating from 1864 to 1974. A wide range of formats are represented in the collection including, but not limited to the following: articles, artifacts, audiocassettes, bills (legislative records), biographies, charts (graphic documents), correspondence, diaries, editorials, interviews, journals (periodicals), magazines, maps, medical records, military records, negatives (photographic), notes, photographs, reports, reprints, scrapbooks, and speeches. Unique materials in the collection are supplemented with copies of original documents and photographs housed in other institutions (e.g. the U.S. National Archives). Most of the materials in the collection were collected or created by Nobel laureate Philip Showalter Hench while researching the history of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission.\u003c/abstract\u003e\n    "],"abstract_tesim":["The Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection documents the work of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission, the legacy of the commission's discoveries, the lives of individuals who were connected to the commission, and twentieth century campaigns to shape public memory of the commission. Items in the collection date from 1800 to 1998, with the bulk of the items dating from 1864 to 1974. A wide range of formats are represented in the collection including, but not limited to the following: articles, artifacts, audiocassettes, bills (legislative records), biographies, charts (graphic documents), correspondence, diaries, editorials, interviews, journals (periodicals), magazines, maps, medical records, military records, negatives (photographic), notes, photographs, reports, reprints, scrapbooks, and speeches. Unique materials in the collection are supplemented with copies of original documents and photographs housed in other institutions (e.g. the U.S. National Archives). Most of the materials in the collection were collected or created by Nobel laureate Philip Showalter Hench while researching the history of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission."],"corpname_ssim":["Claude Moore Health Sciences Library","United States. Army"],"names_coll_ssim":["United States. Army"],"names_ssim":["Claude Moore Health Sciences Library","United States. Army"],"language_ssim":["Collection is predominantly in English; other materials in the collection are in Spanish, French, and Portuguese."],"descrules_ssm":["Describing Archives: A Content Standard"],"total_component_count_is":10452,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-09-17T13:58:02.897Z","bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission (1900-1901) was a board of physicians that the U.S. government formed in order to determine how yellow fever was transmitted between hosts. Ultimately, the commission's experiments in Cuba proved that mosquitoes transmit yellow fever--a discovery that would spur successful campaigns to control and eradicate yellow fever throughout much of the globe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e When Major Walter Reed and Acting Assistant Surgeons James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse Lazear gathered on the porch of the Columbia Barracks Hospital in June of 1900, they became the fourth successive board of U.S. medical officers to grapple with the appalling plague that was yellow fever.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The persistence of this disease across the Cuban archipelago and its periodic re-emergence along the coastlines and great river drainages of the Americas was taking countless thousands of lives. Lack of precise knowledge as to its cause and transmission had augmented yellow fever's extraordinarily high mortality rate and had given rise to quarantine regulations which constituted substantial impediments to efficient regional trade. Endemic in the tropics, yellow fever imposed high humanitarian and economic costs upon the entire region. Specialists regarded Cuba as one of the principal foci of the disease, and the island consequently attracted considerable attention from the medical sciences.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In 1879, one year after a devastating epidemic swept up the Mississippi valley from New Orleans, Tulane University Professor Stanford E. Chaille led the first investigatory commission to Havana, Rio de Janeiro, and the West Indies. The Chaille Commission remained in Havana three months, and its members -- including George Miller Sternberg, who became Surgeon General of the Army, and Juan Guiteras, later Director of Public Health for Havana -- consulted with Cuban scientist Carlos J. Finlay. They concluded that the causal agent for yellow fever was possibly a living entity in the atmosphere, an assertion which set Finlay on the path to the mosquito theory he developed in 1881.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Louis Pasteur's foundational and highly successful work in modern immunology in 1880 and 1881 gave a renewed impetus to investigations aimed at discovering the \"yellow fever germ.\" Over the middle years of the 1880s several scientists advanced different theories, all readily refuted by bacteriological work Sternberg undertook in Brazil and Mexico in 1887 and again in Havana in 1888 and 1889. In 1897, Italian scientist Giuseppe Sanarelli argued that\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eBacillus icteroides\u003c/emph\u003ewas the culprit, and the following year a third scientific team sailed to Cuba for additional tests. Eugene Wasdin and Henry D. Geddings appeared to confirm Sanarelli's assertion, though Sternberg, by then Surgeon General, remained skeptical.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Despite Wasdin and Geddings' insistence, the\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eB. icteroides\u003c/emph\u003etheory garnered significant opposition. In fact, a few months before the third commission's report reached the public, Walter Reed and James Carroll -- Reed's assistant at the Columbian University (later George Washington University) bacteriology laboratories in Washington, D.C. -- published a thorough refutation of the\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eicteroides\u003c/emph\u003eproposal: the bacteria was not a unique cause of yellow fever, but a variety of the hog cholera bacillus, \"a secondary invader in yellow fever,\" Reed determined, unrelated to its etiology. [1] Dispute continued, however, and when Sternberg organized the fourth investigatory board, he charged Reed and his associates to settle the\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eB. icteroides\u003c/emph\u003equestion once and for all, then to proceed with analysis of other blood cultures and intestinal flora from yellow fever cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed and Carroll had considerable experience in bacteriological analysis, and, Sternberg reasoned, might well be able to find the specific agent of the disease. Aristides Agramonte, a Cuban scientist who had worked in Reed's lab at the Columbian University in 1898, was also an accomplished bacteriologist; he had identified\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eB. icteroides\u003c/emph\u003ein tissue samples from cases other than yellow fever, providing further evidence opposed to Sanarelli's thesis. Jesse Lazear, a scientist from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, had joined the Army Medical Corps to study tropical diseases at their point of origin; he received orders for Cuba in February 1900. Lazear impressed Reed with his abilities when the two men became acquainted in March. No doubt with Reed's advice, Sternberg assembled a crack team -- all experienced in scientific research, but each with interests as diverse as their temperaments. The mix of talent and personalities generated spectacular results.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e What causes yellow fever? This simple, even obvious question had dictated yellow fever research for over two decades, and so it guided Reed in organizing the work of the commission.\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eBacillus icteroides\u003c/emph\u003eand other bacteriological sampling dominated their work for the first months. \"Reed and Carroll have been at that for a long time,\" Lazear wrote with some impatience to his wife on August 23, \". . . I would rather try to find the germ without bothering about Sanarelli.\" [2] Again and again, tests for the bacteria proved negative, and at the same time, perplexing cases of yellow fever were developing in the region. Agramonte and Reed investigated an epidemic at Pinar del Rio, 110 miles southwest of Havana; Lazear followed later to collect more specimens, and he also assessed the situation at Guanjay thirty miles southwest. To \"my very great surprise,\" Reed admitted, the specific circumstances of the appearance and development of these cases gave strong evidence against the widely-accepted notion that the excreta of patients spread the disease. The theory of fomites -- infection from contaminated clothing and bedding -- and indeed even infection from airborne particles seemed altogether untrue. \"At this stage of our investigation,\" Reed concluded, \". . . the time had arrived when the plan of our work should be radically changed.\" [3] The fundamental question underwent a subtle but critical transformation: from what causes yellow fever to what transmits it. A clear and accurate understanding of how the disease was spread would open a new avenue to its specific cause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e \"Personally, I feel that only can experimentation on human beings serve to clear the field for further effective work,\" Reed stated to Surgeon General Sternberg, who concurred. [4] Evidence gathering around them pointed strongly to an intermediate host, and the Commission resolved to test Carlos Finlay's mosquito theory -- then not generally accepted -- on human volunteers. Nine times from August 11 to August 25, 1900, mosquitoes landed on the arms of volunteers and proceeded to feed. Nine times the results were negative. On August 27, Lazear placed a mosquito on the doubting Dr. Carroll, and four days later on William J. Dean, a soldier designated XY in the \"Preliminary Note.\" [5] Both promptly developed yellow fever. Significantly, their mosquitoes had fed on cases within the initial three days of an attack and had been allowed to ripen for at least twelve days before the inoculations. Carroll vitiated the results of his experimental sickness by traveling off the post to Havana, a contaminated zone, even as Reed, ecstatic, wrote from Washington in a confidential letter: \"Did the Mosquito do it?\" [6] Dean's case seemed to prove it, since he claimed not to have left the garrison before becoming ill. Lazear also developed a case of yellow fever, almost certainly experimental in origin, though he never revealed the actual circumstances of his inoculation. His severe bout of fever took a fatal turn on September 25, 1900.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Nevertheless, these results could not have been more dramatic or convincing for the Commission. Reed quickly assembled a \"Preliminary Note,\" which he presented to the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association in Indianapolis, Indiana, October 23, 1900. After initial consultations in Cuba with General Leonard Wood, military governor of the island, and with Surgeon General Sternberg in Washington, he returned to Cuba with authorization and funding to design and carry forward a fully defensible series of experiments. His aim was confirmation of the mosquito theory and invalidation of the long-held belief in fomites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e On open terrain beyond the precincts of Columbia Barracks -- the American military base just west of Havana near the adjacent suburban towns of Quemados and Marianao (also called Quemados de Marianao) -- Reed established the quarantined experimental station. Camp Lazear, as the Commission dedicated it, took form in the rolling fields of the Finca San Jose, on the farm of Dr. Ignacio Rojas, who leased the land to the Americans. Here Reed designed two small wood-frame buildings, each 14 by 20 feet, for the experimental work, and nearby raised a group of seven tents for the accommodation and support of the volunteers. The buildings faced each other across a small swale, about 80 yards apart, and stood 75 yards from the tent encampment. Building Number One, called the Infected Clothing Building, was a single room tightly constructed to contain as much foul air as possible. A small stove kept the temperature and humidity at tropical levels, and carefully attached screening secured the pair of doorways in a vestibule against intrusion by mosquitoes. Wooden blinds on two small sealed windows shielded the room from direct sun. Building Number Two, the Infected Mosquito Building, contained a principal room, divided into two sections by a floor-to-ceiling wire mesh screen. A door direct to the exterior let into one section, while a vestibule with a solid exterior door and pair of successive screened doors opened to the other, so configured to keep infected mosquitoes inside that section alone. The spare furnishings in both sections -- cots with bedding -- were steam sterilized. Windows exposed the entire room to the clean, steady ocean breezes and to sunlight. Like the doorways, they were carefully screened. A secondary room attached to the building but not communicating with the experimental spaces sheltered the small, heated laboratory where the Commission members raised and stored the mosquitoes to be used.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e These two experimental buildings presented alternate environments -- one conspicuously clean and well ventilated, the other filthy and fetid. Contemporary theories of disease held that yellow fever developed in unclean conditions, and consequently much time and money had been devoted to sanitation projects. Workers steamed clothing, burned sulphur in ships' holds, and thoroughly scrubbed surfaces with disinfectant. In cases of severe epidemic, entire buildings presumed to be infected were set afire along with their contents. Thus the extraordinary -- and intentional -- paradox of the Commission's experimental regime: Reed expected yellow fever to develop not in the unsanitary environment, but in the one thought to be most healthful.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Camp Lazear went into quarantine the day of its completion, November 20, 1900, with a command of four immune and nine non-immune individuals, all save one U.S. Army personnel. Soon a group of recent Spanish immigrants to Cuba augmented the non-immune numbers, bringing the resident total to about twenty. Reed strictly controlled access to the camp and ordered regular temperature recording for each volunteer to eliminate any unanticipated source of infection and to identify the onset of any case of yellow fever as early as possible. As a result, non-immunes were barred from returning should they leave the precinct, and two of the Spaniards who developed intermittent fevers shortly after arrival were immediately transferred with their baggage to Columbia Barracks Hospital. The immune members of the detachment oversaw medical treatments and drove the teams of mules that pulled supply wagons and the ambulance. Experimentation did not begin until each volunteer had passed the incubation period for yellow fever in perfect health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed took as much care with the design of the experimental protocol as he had with the configuration of the camp and its buildings. Each evening, the occupants of the infected clothing building unpacked trunks and boxes of bed linens and blankets, nightshirts and other clothing recently worn and soiled by cases from the wards of Columbia Barracks Hospital and Las Animas Hospital in Havana. These they shook out and spread around the room to permeate the atmosphere. The stench was overpowering. Yellow fever causes severe internal hemorrhaging, and its unfortunate victims often suffer from black vomit and other bloody discharges. One routine delivery proved so putrid the volunteers \"retreated from the house,\" Reed stated. \"They pluckily returned, however, within a short time, and spent the night as usual.\" [7] In two succeeding trials the protocol became progressively more daring , as the volunteers then wore the clothing and slept on the mattresses used by yellow fever patients, and finally put towels on their bedding smeared with blood drawn from cases in the early stages of an attack. Each morning, the volunteers carefully repacked the rank, encrusted materials into boxes and emerged to an adjacent tent where they spent the day quarantined from the rest of the company. Three trials of twenty days each involved seven men altogether, lead by Robert P. Cooke, a physician in the Army Medical Corps. None developed yellow fever.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The Commission's mosquito experiments proceeded in four series. First, Reed sought to demonstrate that mosquitoes of the variety\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eCulex fasciata\u003c/emph\u003e(later called\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eStegomyia fasciata\u003c/emph\u003e, and later still\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/emph\u003e) could in fact transmit yellow fever, as Carlos J. Finlay had argued and the initial experiments at Camp Columbia strongly suggested. Here the Commission members simply applied infected mosquitoes contained in test tubes or jars to the skin of the initial volunteers. Success in these tests raised a number of questions, each one addressed in the subsequent series:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eHow could a building become infected?\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eWhen does a mosquito develop the ability to transmit the disease?\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003eOver what length of time can a mosquito retain this capacity to infect?\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n","\u003cp\u003eThe second series consequently employed the specialized \"Infected Mosquito Building\" to indicate how a structure could be considered infected with yellow fever. This experiment required two groups of volunteers, one to be inoculated and another to serve as controls. \"Loaded\" mosquitoes, as the men called them, were released into the screened section of Building Two -- on the side with the protected vestibule entry. One or more non-immune men then entered the opposite section of the room through the direct exterior door, and lay down on bunks adjacent to the wire mesh screen in the center of the room. Now the young man to be inoculated walked through the vestibule into the mosquito side of the room and proceeded to lie on a bunk adjacent to the wire screen separating him from the controls. The inoculation volunteer remained in the building for about twenty minutes -- enough time to suffer several mosquito bites -- he then exited to a quarantine tent outside. The controls spent the remainder of the evening and night in the uninfected side of the room, and indeed returned to sleep in the room for as many as eighteen more nights. As Reed stated, absence of yellow fever in the controls showed \"that the essential factor in the infection of a building with yellow fever is the presence therein of [infected] mosquitoes,\" and nothing more. [8] The degree of sanitation, so long considered critical, was utterly irrelevant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The third series of mosquito experiments confirmed what Henry Rose Carter, of the U.S. Public Health Service, called the \"period of extrinsic incubation,\" [9] the length of time required for secondary cases of yellow fever to develop after an initial intrusion of the disease into a locality. In this series, a single volunteer underwent three successive inoculations by the same mosquitoes, each group of inoculations interrupted by a period of time equal in length to the typical incubation period of the disease in humans, about five days. In this manner, the volunteer's illness could be specifically attributed to a single inoculation group. The use of the same mosquitoes and the same volunteer concurrently demonstrated that no peculiar personal immunity was at play, since logic dictates that a person susceptible to yellow fever on day 17 of a mosquito's contamination -- as happened in the experiment -- could not have been immune to yellow fever on day 11 or day 4. It was thus only the mosquito's capacity to infect which changed, and that occurred no less than 11 days after contamination.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The duration of time over which these \"fully ripened\" mosquitoes remained infective comprised the fourth series of experiments. For this series the Commission kept alive a group of infected mosquitoes for as long as possible, and proceeded to inoculate three volunteers -- on the 39th, 51st, and 57th day after contamination. Each developed yellow fever. A fourth volunteer declined to be bitten on day 65, and the last two mosquitoes of the group, \"deprived of further opportunity to feed on human blood\" [10] expired on day 69 and day 71, clear evidence that even a sparsely populated region may retain the potential for new infections more than two months after the first appearance of the disease.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Although it went unrecorded in the published papers, Reed organized a supplemental experiment to test another species of mosquito.\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eCulex pungens\u003c/emph\u003efailed to transmit yellow fever to at least one volunteer and probably to a second. Reed's preliminary conclusions indicated that\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eCulex fasciata\u003c/emph\u003ewas the only species capable of transmitting yellow fever. [11]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e A last experimental regime involved subcutaneous injections of blood from positive cases of yellow fever to presumed non-immunes. Reed devised these tests to confirm the presence of the yellow fever agent in the blood of a victim during the first days of an attack, and, more importantly, to settle the\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eBacillus icteroides\u003c/emph\u003equestion. The same blood cultures which produced yellow fever in four volunteers also failed to grow any\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eB. icteroides\u003c/emph\u003e, conclusively invalidating Sanarelli's claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Altogether, the mosquito inoculations and the blood injections produced fourteen cases of yellow fever. All made a full recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Notwithstanding the decisive medical victory -- as Reed declared, \"aside from the antitoxin of Diptheria and Koch's discovery of the tubercle bacillus, it will be regarded as the most important piece of work, scientifically, during the 19th century\" [12] -- success at Camp Lazear unfolded in its own time. Initially, Reed observed, \"the results obtained at this station were not encouraging.\" [13] The first inoculations of four volunteers over a period of two weeks proved disconcertingly negative each time. Then, on December 5, 1900, private John R. Kissinger presented his arm to the mosquitoes, and late in the evening on December 8, suffered the first chills of \"a well-marked attack of yellow fever.\" [14] Three more men in rapid succession fell victim to the insects -- Spanish volunteers Antonio Benigno, Nicanor Fernandez, and Vicente Presedo. The force of the conclusions was evident to everyone:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e \"It can readily be imagined,\" Reed empathetically and wryly described in his first presentation of the experiments, \"that the concurrence of 4 cases of yellow fever in our small command of 12 non-immunes within the space of 1 week, while giving rise to feelings of exultation in the hearts of the experimenters, in view of the vast importance attaching to these results, might inspire quite other sentiments in the bosoms of those who had previously consented to submit themselves to the mosquito's bite. In fact, several of our good-natured Spanish friends who had jokingly compared our mosquitoes to 'the little flies that buzzed harmlessly about their tables,' suddenly appeared to lose all interest in the progress of science, and, forgetting for the moment even their own personal aggrandizement, incontinently severed their connection with Camp Lazear. Personally, while lamenting to some extent their departure, I could not but feel that in placing themselves beyond our control they were exercising the soundest judgment.\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e \"In striking contrast,\" Reed continued, the anxiety of the fomites volunteers began to melt into relief. \"[T]he countenances of these men, which had before borne the serious aspect of those who were bravely facing an unseen foe, suddenly took on the glad expression of 'schoolboys let out for a holiday,' and from this time their contempt for 'fomites' could not find sufficient expression. Thus illustrating once more, gentlemen, the old adage that familiarity, even with fomites, may breed contempt.\" [15]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The question of human experimentation was indeed a serious one -- unavoidable, in actuality, as Reed had stated the previous summer to Surgeon General Sternberg. When the Commission first considered a trial of Finlay's mosquito theory, Reed, Carroll, and Lazear agreed to experiment on themselves. Agramonte, a native Cuban, had acquired immunity as a child. Doubtless Finlay's experience of many unsuccessful inoculations communicated that positive results would not be forthcoming rapidly, so before the first series of inoculations began under Lazear's direction at Columbia Barracks, Reed left Cuba for Washington, where he completed a monumental report on typhoid fever among the army corps -- left unfinished by the sudden death of co-author Edward O. Shakespeare. Carroll and Lazear both sickened while Reed was in Washington, and Lazear, young and strong, had no reason to anticipate that his case would be fatal. Reed was shocked at Lazear's death, and because of his own age -- 49, a decade and a half older than Lazear and a dozen years older than Carroll -- he resolved not to inoculate himself when he returned to Cuba on October 4, 1900. The point had already been amply demonstrated, and only a rigidly controlled experimental regime would establish the necessary proof. Carroll, however, remained embittered about this for the remainder of his life, though he evidently never communicated his objections directly to Reed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e That initial series of mosquito inoculations was probably accomplished without formal documentation of informed consent. Indeed, the experiments may also have been carried forward without the full knowledge of the commanding officer of Camp Columbia, and Reed consequently shielded the identity of Private William J. Dean, the second positive experimental case, behind the pseudonym \"XY\" in the \"Preliminary Note.\" No such potentially troublesome problems arose for the experimental series at Camp Lazear; Reed obtained prior support from all of the appropriate authorities in the military and the administration, even including the Spanish Consul to Cuba. With the advice of the Commission and others, he drafted what is now one of the oldest series of extant informed consent documents. The surviving examples are in Spanish with English translations, and were signed by volunteers Antonio Benigno and Vicente Presedo, and a third with the mark of Nicanor Fernandez, who was illiterate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The documents take the form of a contract between individual volunteers and the Commission, represented by Reed. At least 25 years old, each volunteer explicitly consented to participate, and balanced the certainty of contracting yellow fever in the general population against the risks of developing an experimental case, followed by expert and timely medical care. The volunteers agreed to remain at Camp Lazear for the duration of the experiments, and as a reward for participation would receive $100 \"in American gold,\" with an additional hundred-dollar supplement for contracting yellow fever. These payments could be assigned to a survivor, and the volunteers agreed to forfeit any remuneration in cases of desertion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e For the American participants no consent documents appear to survive, though in contemporary letters Reed assured his correspondents that the Commission obtained written consent from all the volunteers. The record of expenses for Camp Lazear -- maintained by Reed's friend and colleague in the medical corps, Jefferson Randolph Kean -- indicates that the same schedule of payments for participation and sickness applied to the Americans as well. Volunteers who participated in the fomites tests and in addition the later series of blood injections and the single trial of an alternative species of mosquito also earned $100 each plus the $100 supplement if yellow fever developed. Two Americans declined these gratuities, as Kean termed them, Dr. Robert P. Cooke, of the fomites tests, and John J. Moran, who had recently received an honorable discharge from the service, and was the only American civilian to participate. His was the fourth case of yellow fever to develop from mosquito inoculation. Moran eventually settled in Cuba, where he managed the Havana offices of the Sun Oil Company, and late in life became a close friend of Philip S. Hench. Together the two men rediscovered the site of Camp Lazear in 1940 -- Building Number One still intact -- and successfully lobbied the Cuban government to memorialize there the work of Finlay and the American Commission in the conquest of yellow fever.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed informally commemorated his own experiences at Camp Lazear by commissioning a group photograph, evidently taken there shortly before he left Cuba in February 1901. A more important event occurred on the sixth of that month when Reed presented the results of the Camp Lazear yellow fever experiments to a great ovation at the Pan-American Medical Congress in Havana. Three days later he set sail for the United States, and once landed, drafted the Congress paper as\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- An Additional Note\u003c/title\u003e, published immediately in the\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eJournal of the American Medical Association\u003c/title\u003e. [16]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Though his correspondence intimates a great appreciation for Cuba, Reed never returned to the warm, sunny shores of the island freed of a dreadful plague. Carroll stayed behind at Camp Lazear through February to complete the last experimental series officially bearing the imprimatur of the Yellow Fever Commission, and returned to Washington soon after March first. [17] The Medical Corps retained the lease on Camp Lazear against the possibility of continuing experiments another season, and Carroll, in fact, returned to Havana in August 1901 for a final experimental series, though he did not make use of Camp Lazear. This work involved at least three volunteers at Las Animas Hospital, Havana, who submitted to blood injections. Carroll's assignment aimed at a greater understanding of the yellow fever agent, and he proved that blood drawn from active cases of yellow fever remained virulent even after passing through fine bacteria filters. In addition, by heating contaminated blood which had previously caused cases of yellow fever, Carroll rendered it non-infective -- thereby establishing that this filterable entity, though sub-microscopic, was demonstrably present in the bloodstream. Carroll wrapped up the series in October and returned home to stay. [18] In Cuba, J. Randolph Kean made the last rental payments to Signore Rojas on October 9, 1901, and Camp Lazear, for more than a generation, slipped out of the realm of memory.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Sources:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[1] Walter Reed and James Carroll,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eBacillus Icteroides and Bacillus Cholerae Suis -- A Preliminary Note\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eMedical News\u003c/title\u003e(29 April 1899), reprinted in: United States Senate Document No. 822,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eYellow Fever, A Compilation of Various Publications\u003c/title\u003e(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), p. 55.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[2] Letter from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 23 August 1900, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 00341001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[3] Walter Reed, \"The Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches,\" in United States Senate Document No. 822,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eYellow Fever A Compilation of Various Publications\u003c/title\u003e(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911), p. 94.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[4] Letter from Walter Reed to George M. Sternberg, 24 July 1900, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 02064001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[5] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, Jesse W. Lazear,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eProceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association\u003c/title\u003eIndianapolis, Indiana, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 October 1900.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[6] Letter from Walter Reed to James Carroll, 7 September 1900, Edward Hook Additions to the Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection: James Carroll Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 15312004. The originals of these letters remain in a private collection.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[7] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- An Additional Note\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eJournal of the American Medical Association\u003c/title\u003e36 (16 February 1901): 431-440, reprinted in: Senate Document No. 822, p. 84.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[8] Walter Reed,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches\u003c/title\u003e, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 99.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[9] Henry Rose Carter,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eA Note on the Spread of Yellow Fever in Houses, Extrinsic Incubation\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eMedical Record\u003c/title\u003e59 (15 June 1901) 24: 937.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[10] Walter Reed,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches\u003c/title\u003e, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 101.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[11]\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eCulex fasciata\u003c/emph\u003ewas reclassified shortly after the experiments as\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eStegomyia\u003c/emph\u003eand later became\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eAedes aegypti.\u003c/emph\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[12] Letter to from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence Reed, 9 December 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 02231001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[13] Walter Reed,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches\u003c/title\u003e, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 97.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[14] Walter Reed,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches\u003c/title\u003e, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 98.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[15] Walter Reed,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Propagation of Yellow Fever -- Observations Based on Recent Researches\u003c/title\u003e, in Senate Document No. 822, p. 99.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[16] Please see note [7].\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[17] The Commission reported these concluding experiments in: Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eExperimental Yellow Fever\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eAmerican Medicine\u003c/title\u003eII (6 July 1901) 1: 15-23.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[18] Walter Reed, James Carroll,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Etiology of Yellow Fever (A Supplemental Note)\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eAmerican Medicine\u003c/title\u003eIII (22 February 1902) 8: 301-305.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  ","\u003cp\u003eWalter Reed (September 13, 1851 - November 22, 1902) was a U.S. Army physician who led the army's Yellow Fever Commission 1900 and 1901. Experiments conducted by the commission confirmed a theory that yellow fever is transmitted by mosquitoes--a discovery that led to the control and eradication of this disease across much of the globe. Reed would receive much of the credit for the work of the commission because of his role as its leader, and, long after his death in 1902, he would be widely celebrated as a heroic figure in the fields of public health and medical research.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed spent his first days in a small house which served as the parsonage for a Methodist congregation in Gloucester County, Virginia, where his father was minister.  Lemuel Sutton Reed and Pharaba White Reed welcomed young Walter into the family on September 13, 1851;  he was the youngest of their five children.  The Reeds moved to other Virginia parishes during Walter's childhood, and just after the close of the Civil War, transferred to the town of Charlottesville.  That move in 1866 placed Walter in the orbit of the University of Virginia, which he entered a year later at age sixteen under the care of his older brother Christopher, also a student at the University.  Reed attended two year-long sessions, the second devoted entirely to the medical curriculum, and he completed an M.D. degree on July 1, 1869, as one of the youngest students to graduate in the history of the medical school.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e At that time the School of Medicine at the University offered little opportunity for direct clinical experience, so Reed subsequently enrolled at the Bellevue Hospital Medical College, in Manhattan, New York.  There he obtained a second M.D. degree in 1870.  Reed interned at a number of hospitals in the New York metropolitan area, including the Infants' Hospital on Randall's Island and the Brooklyn City Hospital.  In 1873, he assumed the position of assistant sanitary officer for the Brooklyn Board of Health.  The large and diverse population of New York, with its many immigrant communities and dense, tenement housing, provided countless medical cases to treat and study;  these served to expose Reed to the vital importance of public health, and developed in him a lifelong interest in the field.  Yet the frenetic life of the great cities began to pall after a few years: \"Here the ever bustling day is crowded into the busy night; nor can we draw the line of separation between the two,\"[1] he wrote to Emilie Lawrence, of Murfreesboro, North Carolina, later to become Mrs. Walter Reed.  Their courtship letters reveal much of his maturing character, interests, and philosophy of life.  Increasing responsibilities with the Board of Health precluded opening a private practice, and Reed's youth proved a barrier in a culture given to offering respect more to the appearance of maturity than to its actual demonstration. Reed consequently resolved to join the Army Medical Corps, both for the professional opportunities it offered immediately and for the modest financial security it could provide to a young man without independent means.  He passed the qualifying examinations in January 1875 and proceeded to his first assignment at the military base on Willet's Point, New York Harbor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed remained in the Medical Corps for the rest of his life, spending many years of the '70s, '80s, and early '90s at difficult postings in the American West.  The first of these -- to the Arizona Territory -- began in the late spring of 1876, and indeed hurried along his wedding to Emilie Lawrence, on April 25, shortly before his departure.  She joined him the following November, and bore two children at frontier posts, a son Walter Lawrence and a daughter Emilie, called Blossom.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed's other western assignments included forts in Nebraska, Dakota Territory, and Minnesota, with two eastern interludes at Baltimore, Maryland and another at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama.  During the second of these tours in Baltimore -- over the 1890-1891 academic year -- Reed completed advanced coursework in pathology and bacteriology in the Johns Hopkins University Hospital Pathology Laboratory.  When he returned from his last western appointment in 1893, Reed joined the faculty of the Army Medical School in Washington, D.C., where he held the professorship of Bacteriology and Clinical Microscopy.  He also became curator of the Army Medical Museum and joined the faculty of the Columbian University in Washington (later the George Washington University).  In addition, Reed maintained close ties with professor William Welch and other leading lights in the scientific community he had come to know at Hopkins a few years earlier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Beyond his teaching responsibilities for the Army and the Columbian University programs, Reed actively pursued medical research projects.  A bibliography of his publications finds entries from 1892 to the year of his untimely death a decade later, and the subjects he investigated range from erysipelas to cholera, typhoid, malaria, and yellow fever, among others.[2]   In 1896, a research trip to investigate an outbreak of smallpox took him to Key West, and there he developed a close friendship with Jefferson Randolph Kean, a fellow Virginian and colleague in the Medical Corps ten years his junior.  When Reed traveled to Cuba in 1899 to study typhoid in the army encampments of the U.S. forces, Kean was already there, and Kean was still in Cuba when Reed returned as the head of the Army board charged by Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg to examine tropical diseases including yellow fever.  Kean and his first wife Louise were great supporters of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work, and Kean in fact served as quartermaster for the famous series of experiments at Camp Lazear.  After the dramatic and conclusive success of those experiments, Kean actively -- though unsuccessfully -- promoted Reed's candidacy for Surgeon General.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Reed continued to speak and publish on yellow fever after his return from Cuba in 1901, receiving honorary degrees from Harvard and the University of Michigan in recognition of his seminal work.  In November 1902, Reed developed what had been for him recurring gastro-intestinal trouble.  This time, however, his appendix ruptured, and surgery came too late to save him from the peritonitis which developed.  He died on November 23, 1902, almost two years to the day from the opening of Camp Lazear and the stunning experimental victory there.  Kean remained a champion of his deceased friend's role in the conquest of yellow fever.  He organized the Walter Reed Memorial Association, to provide support for Reed's family and to build a suitable memorial, and was instrumental in lobbying the United States Congress to establish the Yellow Fever Roll of Honor.  In 1929, Congress mandated the annual publication of the Roll in the\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eArmy Register\u003c/title\u003e, and struck a series Congressional Gold Medals saluting the Commission members and the young Americans who bravely suffered experimental yellow fever a generation before.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Sources:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[1] Letter from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence, 18 July 1874, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 01605001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[2] The bibliography of Reed's scientific papers may be found in: Howard Atwood Kelly,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eWalter Reed and Yellow Fever\u003c/title\u003e(New York: McClure, Phillips and Co., 1906), pp. 281-283. Kelly's complete biography of Reed is contained on this Web site.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  ","\u003cp\u003eJesse William Lazear (May 2, 1866 - September 26, 1900) was a physician who was a member of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission in 1900. Lazear's death from yellow fever at the outset of the commission's work in Cuba would lead to his elevation as a martyr for medical science in the eyes of many during the twentieth century.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e \"I rather think I am on the track of the real germ,\" Jesse W. Lazear wrote his wife from Cuba on September 8, 1900.[1] Seventeen days later, the fulminating case of yellow fever Lazear had contracted just over a week after writing Mabel H. Lazear suddenly ended the young scientist's life. He was 34 years old. Unlike so many other yellow fever fatalities, however, this one would lead to a direct and highly successful assault on the disease itself. Yellow fever's ascendancy, endemic in Cuba, was about to be undermined.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Lazear had reported to Camp Columbia, Cuba in February 1900 for duty as an acting assistant surgeon with the U. S. Army Corps stationed on the island. Here he undertook bacteriological study of tropical diseases, particularly malaria and yellow fever, and in May he was named to the Army board charged with \"pursuing scientific investigations with reference to the infectious diseases prevalent on the island of Cuba.\"[2]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e These orders placed him officially in the company of Walter Reed, James Carroll, and Aristides Agramonte -- the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission -- though Lazear had already met Reed the preceding March on a project to evaluate the efficacy of electrozone, a disinfectant made from seawater collected off the Cuban coast. While Reed was in Cuba that March, Lazear discussed with him the recent discovery of British scientist Sir Ronald Ross concerning the mosquito vector for malaria. At Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where he was first a medical resident and later in charge of the clinical laboratory, Lazear had followed Ross's accomplishments with great interest, and pursued field work and experimentation on the\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eAnopheles\u003c/emph\u003emosquito with fellow Hopkins scientist William S. Thayer. Lazear was thus the only member of the Commission who had experience with mosquito work, and was consequently the most open to the possible verity of Cuban scientist Carlos Juan Finlay's theory of mosquito transmission for yellow fever.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The record is apparently silent as to when Lazear first visited Finlay. Certainly by late June Lazear was beginning to grow mosquito larvae acquired from Finlay's laboratory, the first specimens brought to him by Henry Rose Carter, of the United States Public Health Service.[3] Not long after arriving in Cuba Lazear met Carter, whose own observations on yellow fever strongly suggested an intermediate host in the spread of the disease. However, Army Surgeon General George Miller Sternberg, who organized the Yellow Fever Commission, first charged the board members to investigate the relationship of\u003cemph render=\"italic\"\u003eBacillus icteroides\u003c/emph\u003eto yellow fever -- proposed by the Italian Scientist Giuseppe Sanarelli as the actual cause of the disease. \"Dr. Reed had been in the old discussion over Sanarelli's bacillus and he still works on that subject,\" Lazear wrote his wife in July, \"I am not all interested in it but want to do work which may lead to the discovery of the real organism.\"[4] Soon he would have the opportunity. The relatively quick failure of the Bacillus icteroides inquiry opened the door to what became the ground-breaking mosquito work, and Lazear was well placed to begin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The project started in earnest on August 1, 1900. In a small pocket notebook Lazear noted the preparatory work of raising and infecting mosquitoes, and subsequently recorded the series of eleven experimental inoculations made from the 11th to the 31st of August, the last two producing cases of full-blown yellow fever. These two positive cases developed from mosquitoes allowed to ripen over a period of 12 days, and this was Lazear's crucial discovery. The epidemiological pattern was thus entirely consistent with Carter's observations of a delay between the primary and secondary outbreaks of yellow fever in an epidemic, and, in addition, explained why Finlay's experiments had been largely unsuccessful -- he had not waited long enough before inoculating his subjects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Although Lazear never directly admitted to experimenting on himself, when Reed reviewed Lazear's sketchy notations he evidently found entries strongly suggesting Lazear's case was not accidental, as officially reported. Unfortunately, the little notebook so crucial to the preparation of the Commission's famous initial paper,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note\u003c/title\u003e[5], vanished from Reed's Washington office after his own untimely death in 1902. Still, Lazear's invaluable contribution to the Commission's victory was widely recognized and elicited tributes from many quarters: \"He was a splendid, brave fellow,\" Reed said of his young colleague, \" and I lament his loss more than words can tell; but his death was not in vain- His name will live in the history of those who have benefited humanity.\" [6] \"His death was a sacrifice to scientific research of the highest character,\" stated General Leonard Wood, military Governor of Cuba.[7] \"Your husband was a martyr in the noblest of causes,\" Dr. L. O. Howard wrote to Mabel Lazear, \"and I am proud to have known him. . . . His work contributed towards one of the greatest discoveries of the century, the results of which will be of invaluable benefit to mankind.\"[8] And so they were. Though Lazear's one-year-old son and newborn daughter never knew their father, they grew up in a world liberated -- almost in its entirety -- from the disease that killed him.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e [1] Letter fragment from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 8 September 1900, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 00344001.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Sources:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[2] Military Orders for Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse W. Lazear, 24 May 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number 02019001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[3] \"Conversation between Drs. Carter, Thayer, and Parker,\" 1924, Henry Rose Carter Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, Box 1.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[4] Letter fragment from Jesse W. Lazear to Mabel Houston Lazear, 15 July 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00334001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[5] Walter Reed, James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, Jesse W. Lazear,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eThe Etiology of Yellow Fever -- A Preliminary Note,\u003c/title\u003e \u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eProceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association Indianapolis, Indiana, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 October 1900.\u003c/title\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[6] Letter from Walter Reed to Emilie Lawrence Reed, 6 October 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 02135001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[7] Letter from Leonard Wood to the Adjutant-General, United States Army, November 1900, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00375002.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[8] Letter from Leland Ossian Howard to Mabel Houston Lazear, 7 February 1901, Hench Reed Collection, accession number: 00388001.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  ","\u003cp\u003eHenry Rose Carter (August 25, 1852 - September 14, 1925) was a prominent physician in the U.S. Public Health Service who was a leading authority in the transmission and control of tropical diseases, particularly yellow fever and malaria. During his long career as a sanitarian, Carter undertook campaigns to investigate and control the spread of tropical diseases in Cuba, the Panama Canal Zone, the Southeastern United States, and Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Like Walter Reed and Jefferson Randolph Kean, Henry Rose Carter was a native Virginian and a graduate of the University of Virginia. Carter obtained a civil engineering degree from Virginia in 1873 and also undertook post-graduate work in mathematics and applied chemistry the next year. Subsequently, however, Carter's interests turned towards medicine, and he completed a medical degree at the University of Maryland in 1879. The same year Assistant Surgeon Carter joined the Marine Hospital Service -- later the United States Public Health Service -- and the young surgeon rose steadily through the ranks, ultimately attaining the position of Assistant Surgeon General in 1915.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Carter's initial assignments with the Hospital Service placed him at the center of the yellow fever maelstrom. In 1879 he was detailed to Memphis and other Southern cities, then in the throes of a second year of devastating epidemics. Here began, as his colleague T. H. D. Griffitts observed, Carter's \"lifelong interest in the epidemiology and control of yellow fever.\"[1] After several years of clinical practice in various Marine hospitals, Carter resumed a direct confrontation with yellow fever when his orders for duty with the Gulf Coast Maritime Quarantine assigned him to Ship Island, Mississippi, in 1888. Here and at subsequent quarantine station postings around the Gulf, he quietly championed a thorough review and rationalization of quarantine policies, with a view toward establishing uniform regulation, more thorough disinfection of vessels, and minimized interference with naval commerce. Crucial to the success of these activities was Carter's attention to the incubation period of yellow fever, which his on-site observations indicated to vary between 5 and 7 days. At the time the official literature stated with far less precision a variance of between 1 and 14 days; Carter's work consequently greatly increased the efficiency and effectiveness of quarantine operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Nevertheless, yellow fever continued to menace the temperate coastline of the United States, and Carter ably directed the Health Service's epidemiological control efforts in numerous threatened regions. In conjunction with this sanitary work for the 1898 season, Carter made detailed notes on the development of yellow fever at Orwood and Taylor, Mississippi. The isolation of these communities enabled him to identify more reliably the phenomenon of a delay between the initial cases of yellow fever in a locality and the subsequent appearance of secondary infection -- a delay two to four times longer than the incubation period of the disease in an infected person. Carter called this interval between the primary and secondary cases \"the period of extrinsic incubation,\" and he defined its \"usual limits . . . [as ranging] from ten to seventeen days.\"[2]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Before he was able to publish his conclusions, Carter took the helm of the quarantine service in war-time Cuba. There, in 1900, he met U. S. Army Yellow Fever Commission member Jesse Lazear. Carter had finally arranged for his paper's publication that year in the\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eNew Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal\u003c/title\u003e, and gave a draft to Lazear. \"If these dates are correct,\" Carter later recalled Lazear saying, \"it spells a living host.\"[3] The theory of mosquito transmission long advanced by Cuban scientist Carlos J. Finlay began to seem more likely. And indeed it was. The Commission's experiments in 1900-1901 irrefutably proved the mosquito vector and established the extrinsic incubation period at twelve days. Shortly after these successes Reed saluted Carter, \"I know of no one more competent to pass judgment on all that pertains to the subject of yellow fever. You must not forget that your own work in Mississippi did more to impress me with the importance of an intermediate host than everything else put to-gether.\"[4]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Carter's long and distinguished sanitary career took him to the Panama Canal Zone in 1904, where he served as Chief Quarantine Officer and Chief of Hospitals for five years. He undertook detailed investigations and control measures of malaria in North Carolina and elsewhere in the South, and became a founder of the National Malaria Committee. With the support of the Rockefeller Foundation International Health Board, he undertook additional investigation and control measures for yellow fever in Central and South America. His expertise recommended him to the Peruvian government, which named Carter Sanitary Advisor in 1920-1921. Health problems at the end of his life compelled Carter to withdraw from active fieldwork, though he remained a highly valued consultant to the Health Board and a much-beloved and respected teacher for a new generation of sanitarians. Carter closed his career researching and writing the manuscript that his daughter Laura Armistead Carter edited and published posthumously in 1931:\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eYellow Fever: An Epidemiological and Historical Study of its Place of Origin.\u003c/title\u003e[5]\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Sources:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[1] T. H. D. Griffitts,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eHenry Rose Carter: The Scientist and the Man\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eSouthern Medical Journal\u003c/title\u003e32 (August 1939) 8: 842.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[2] Henry Rose Carter,\u003ctitle render=\"doublequote\"\u003eA Note on the Spread of Yellow Fever in Houses, Extrinsic Incubation\u003c/title\u003e,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eMedical Record\u003c/title\u003e59 (15 June 1901) 24: 937.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[3] \"Conversation between Drs. Carter, Thayer, and Parker,\" 1924, Henry Rose Carter Papers, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, Box 1.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[4] Letter from Walter Reed to Henry Rose Carter, 26 February 1901, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 02447001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[5] Carter, Henry Rose.\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eYellow Fever: An Epidemiological and Historical Study of its Place of Origin.\u003c/title\u003eBaltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1931.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  ","\u003cp\u003eJefferson Randolph Kean (June 27, 1860 - September 4, 1950) was a U.S. Army physician who was a leading authority in sanitation, public health, and tropical diseases. Later in his career, Kean would become widely recognized for his role in organizing and administering medical services for the U.S. armed forces during World War I.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e \"He possessed one of the keenest, most scholarly minds I've ever encountered,\" recalled Nobel Prize winner Philip S. Hench of Jefferson Randolph Kean. [1] Kean and Hench shared an abiding interest in the work of the United States Army Yellow Fever Commission -- Kean, as a contemporary and supporter, and Hench, as a scholar and scientist intent on accurate historical documentation. On the advice of yellow fever experiment volunteer John J. Moran, Hench first wrote Kean in 1939. From that initial contact developed a close friendship which would last for the remainder of their lives. Kean entrusted Hench not only with numerous period documents, including original letters, accounts, fever charts, and other items, but also with the freely-given counsel and insight of a trusted friend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Like Walter Reed and Henry Rose Carter before him, Jefferson Randolph Kean was an alumnus of the University of Virginia, completing the medical program there in 1883. Kean joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1884, and after forty years in the service, retired with the rank of Colonel. Congress awarded him a promotion to Brigadier General, retired, in 1930. The early years of Kean's career passed in medical postings in the American West, and no doubt offered him experiences similar to those of Walter Reed, whom he met not on the frontier, but in Florida in 1896. Kean became an expert in tropical diseases and sanitation during his five-year assignment in the Florida tropics, an expertise which served him well over two terms of service later in Cuba. During the Spanish-American War and subsequent U. S. occupation of Cuba, Kean was Chief Surgeon for the Department of Havana, then Superintendent of the Department of Charities -- from 1898 to 1902. After a four-year interlude as an assistant to the Surgeon General in Washington, D.C., Kean again returned to Cuba as an advisor to the Department of Sanitation from 1906-1909.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Kean himself stated: \"Reed and I were good friends before the Yellow Fever Board came to Cuba in June 1900, and [Reed] located himself at Marianao, 8 miles S. W. of Havana,\" to be within the medical and administrative jurisdiction overseen by Kean. [2] The Chief Surgeon did indeed offer significant assistance, and was an early convert to Carlos Finlay's mosquito theory of transmission, which the Yellow Fever Board's experiments ultimately proved true in the late autumn and winter of 1900-1901. As early as October 13, 1900 -- after the Board's preliminary work, but before the final convincing demonstrations -- Kean issued \"Circular No. 8,\" concerning the latest scholarship on the mosquito vector for disease. [3] The circular contained a set of instructions for the entire command on mosquito eradication. Kean subsequently served as quartermaster and financial administrator for the famous series of yellow fever experiments at Camp Lazear and, for the rest of his life, Kean remained a strong proponent of the Commission's conclusions. He worked tirelessly not only to apply them in the field, but also to accord proper public recognition to the Commission's work.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In addition to his career as a sanitarian, Kean organized the department of military relief of the American Red Cross, and during World War One served as Chief of the U. S. Ambulance Service with the French Army and Deputy Chief Surgeon of the American forces. France named him an Officier de la Légion d'Honneur in recognition for these services. Cuban authorities as well offered Kean recognition with the grand cross of the Order of Merit Carlos J. Finlay, and he received both a Distinguished Service Medal from the United States government and the Gorgas Medal from the Association of Military Surgeons. For a decade after his retirement from active duty, Kean edited this last organization's medical journal,\u003ctitle render=\"italic\"\u003eThe Military Surgeon\u003c/title\u003e, and served on the Surgeon General's editorial board for the multi-volume history of the medical department in World War One. A great-grandson of Thomas Jefferson, Kean also took a seat with the government commission established to build the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. He held charter membership in the Walter Reed Memorial Association, and remained active in its affairs until his death in 1950.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Sources:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[1] Telegram from Philip Showalter Hench and Mary Hench to Cornelia Knox Kean, September 5, 1950, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 06501173.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[2] Letter from Jefferson Randolph Kean to Philip Showalter Hench, October 31, 1939, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 06282022.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[3] Military Orders to Commanding Officers, October 15, 1900, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 02140001.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  ","\u003cp\u003ePhilip Showalter Hench (February 28, 1896 - March 30, 1965) was a U.S. physician who in 1950 was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for his role in the discovery of the hormone cortisone. In addition to his medical research, Hench spent almost three decades of his life studying the history of the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission and became a leading authority in the subject.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Philip Showalter Hench was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the son of Jacob Bixler Hench and Clara Showalter. After attending local schools, Hench entered Lafayette College and graduated from the school 1916 with a Bachelor of Arts. Hench completed his medical degree at the University of Pittsburgh in 1920, and subsequently entered a residency program at St. Francis Hospital, Pittsburgh. His association with the Mayo Clinic began in 1921 as a fellow at the institution. Two years later he would become an assistant at the clinic, and then, in 1926, he would be made the head of its Department of Rheumatic Diseases After pursuing post-graduate study in Germany in 1928-1929, Hench obtained a Masters of Science in Internal Medicine at the University of Minnesota in 1931, and a Doctor of Science degree from Lafayette College in 1940. Hench remained for the duration of his career at the Mayo Clinic, where his life-long passion for meticulous research and analysis brought him the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1950, which he shared with Edward C. Kendall and Tadeus Reichstein, for the discovery of cortisone.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e The same persistence and determination present in his professional life is also evident in Hench's research on the U. S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's famous experiments. \"As a physician particularly interested in medical history,\" he stated to experiment volunteer John J. Moran in 1937, \"I have been long interested in the story of the yellow fever work in John J. Moran, Ralph C. Hutchison, Havana.\" [1] So began a remarkable odyssey. At the request of his friend Ralph Cooper Hutchison, then president of Washington and Jefferson College, Hench had written Moran to gather information for the dedication of the College's new chemistry building, named for Commission member and former Washington and Jefferson student Jesse W. Lazear. Hench also began a correspondence with another of the yellow fever experiment's original volunteers, John R. Kissinger. Moran's and Kissinger's recollections proved so intriguing that Hench initially offered to edit and publish them. However, in the course of his research Hench discovered that much general information on the topic was inaccurate. Conflicting assertions concerning the participants and unverified claims by medical and governmental authorities in the United States and Cuba -- often politically motivated -- clouded interpretation of the facts. \"May I suggest,\" Moran consequently urged in 1938, \"that a clearing up of the REED-FINLAY-CONQUEST-OF-YELLOW-FEVER, or an effort to do so, on your part, is a task far more pressing than publishing the Kissinger-Moran stories or memoirs.\" [2] Hench resolved to document every aspect of the \"Conquest of Yellow-Fever\" and to write a much needed accurate and comprehensive history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e For the next two decades, Hench tirelessly combed through public archive collections and personal papers in the United States and Cuba. He met and interviewed surviving participants of the experiments and others associated with the project, as well as family members of the Yellow Fever Commission. He sought out physicians and scientists who had worked with the principal players or who had applied the results in the campaign to eradicate yellow fever. He identified and photographed sites associated with the yellow fever story, and he successfully petitioned politicians in the United States and Cuba to commemorate the work. In the process, Hench became the trusted friend and advisor of many of these same individuals, and they, in turn, presented him with much of the surviving original material for safekeeping.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e In short, Hench came to be the world's expert on the yellow fever story and the steward of thousands of original letters and documents. His premature death at age 69 found him still hoping to uncover important missing evidence, his book unwritten. Hench's widow Mary Kahler Hench gave his yellow fever collection to the University of Virginia, Walter Reed's alma mater, and this extensive personal archive forms the most detailed and accurate record available on the Conquest of Yellow Fever.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e Sources:\u003c/p\u003e    ","\u003clist type=\"ordered\"\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[1] Letter from Philip S. Hench to John J. Moran, 6 July 1937, Philip S. Hench Walter Reed Yellow Fever Collection, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, Department of Historical Collections and Services, accession number: 03419001.\u003c/item\u003e\n      \u003citem\u003e[2] Letter from John J. Moran to Philip S. Hench, 30 October 1938, Hench Reed Yellow Fever Collection, accession number: 03476001.\u003c/item\u003e\n    \u003c/list\u003e\n  "]}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_7_resources_1710_c09_c06_c48"}},{"id":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06_c177","type":"File","attributes":{"title":"Unfiled papers, including correspondence re cases and other business matters, documents, bills (many unopened), etc. Most of the personal papers were found with these materials and were culled. When case materials were recognized, they were interfiled in the proper place., 1880/1950","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06_c177#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06_c177","ref_ssm":["viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06_c177"],"id":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06_c177","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_root_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06","parent_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06","parent_ssim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","General Office Correspondence and Cases, 1920/1955"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_repositories_4_resources_66","viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06"],"title_filing_ssi":"Unfiled papers, including correspondence re cases and other business matters, documents, bills (many unopened), etc. Most of the personal papers were found with these materials and were culled. When case materials were recognized, they were interfiled in the proper place.","title_ssm":["Unfiled papers, including correspondence re cases and other business matters, documents, bills (many unopened), etc. Most of the personal papers were found with these materials and were culled. When case materials were recognized, they were interfiled in the proper place."],"title_tesim":["Unfiled papers, including correspondence re cases and other business matters, documents, bills (many unopened), etc. Most of the personal papers were found with these materials and were culled. When case materials were recognized, they were interfiled in the proper place."],"normalized_title_ssm":["Unfiled papers, including correspondence re cases and other business matters, documents, bills (many unopened), etc. Most of the personal papers were found with these materials and were culled. When case materials were recognized, they were interfiled in the proper place., 1880/1950"],"text":["Unfiled papers, including correspondence re cases and other business matters, documents, bills (many unopened), etc. Most of the personal papers were found with these materials and were culled. When case materials were recognized, they were interfiled in the proper place., 1880/1950","Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","General Office Correspondence and Cases, 1920/1955","box MSS 79-6 Box 179","box MSS 79-6 Box 180","box MSS 79-6 Box 181","box MSS 79-6 Box 182"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","General Office Correspondence and Cases, 1920/1955"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","General Office Correspondence and Cases, 1920/1955"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1880/1950"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["1880's-1950's"],"level_ssm":["File"],"level_ssim":["File"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":1568,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"containers_ssim":["box MSS 79-6 Box 179","box MSS 79-6 Box 180","box MSS 79-6 Box 181","box MSS 79-6 Box 182"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["Some of these files are restricted."],"date_range_isim":[1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950],"_nest_path_":"/components#5/components#176","timestamp":"2026-09-17T13:57:56.004Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_root_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_4_resources_66","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/oai/UVA/repositories_4_resources_66.xml","aspace_url_ssi":"https://archives.lib.virginia.edu/ark:/59853/106865","title_ssm":["Duke family law firm papers"],"title_tesim":["Duke family law firm papers"],"unitdate_ssm":["circa 1820 - 1959"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["circa 1820 - 1959"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1820/1959"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"text":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959","MSS.79.6","Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","/repositories/4/resources/66","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century","practice of law -- Virginia","lawyers -- Virginia","Some of these files are restricted.","The papers are organized into 8 series: 1st-6th series concern the law practice; 7th series, the insurance business; and the 8th, family business.","Series I. Incoming letters (boxes 1-43) -- From 1869 to 1923 (and occasionally through the 1940's) incoming letters were filed separately from other material. From 1899 to 1923 all incoming letters were stored annually in special file boxes arranged alphabetically by correspondent's name. The papers in this series are arranged as they were found.","Series II. Copies of outgoing letters (boxes 44-57) -- From the 1870's through the teens copies of outgoing letters were kept chronologically in letterpress books. The books are stored in chronological order.","Series III. Case files (boxes 58-125) -- The case files date back to 1874, but are concentrated between 1920 and 1955. While the dates of these case files overlap the chronological ones described above, case files were by no means regularly created until the early twenties when the other system was virtually abandoned. Since many, but not all, of the case files were numbered, it was impossible to restore them to numerical order. Therefore, they have been grouped into decades and then arranged alphabetically by title found on the original folder. If the original folder was numbered, that number is noted on the new one. The cases concern principally the settlement of debts, property and divorce, as well as, for the last few decades, insurance claims.","Series IV. Legal documents (boxes 126-145) -- These documents, originally stored apart from case files, are organized chronologically according to type of document, the largest groups of which are deeds (1885-1929) and titles (1876-1936). Also included in this series are documents related to specific cases (ca. 1870-1925), to the coal business, and to miscellaneous matters (ca. 1800-1950).","Series V. Financial papers (boxes 146-167 and oversize) -- The financial papers were likewise apparently filed separately in the office. They include notes, bonds, collections, accounts, bills, taxes, etc., and are arranged alphabetically (ca. 1870-1950). Ledgers containing the same sort of financial records are organized by size.","Series VI. General office correspondendence and cases (boxes 168-185) -- This alphabetical file, ca. 1920-1955, was apparently created for routine correspondence concerning clients and office matters. For some reason, certain cases were also incorporated into the alphabetical system, despite the fact that numbered case files continued to be created until the practice closed. (To complicate matters a bit further, there seem to have been two alphabetical files used consecutively. These have now been merged into one.) This series contains correspondence and case files, desk diaries, memoranda, unfiled office papers, and files relating to the insurance companies Eskridge represented.","Series VII. Insurance agency files (boxes 186-217) -- These files of the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville, 1923-1927, cover the period in which W.F. Carter, Jr., was agent. At the beginning of the series are documents concerning the audit of the agency and the subsequent incorporation.","Series VIII. Family business files, civic material and miscellany (boxes 218-232) -- These records, dating from the 1880's, provide a good deal of information about the financial affairs of the Charlottesville Dukes as well as their relatives.","Richard Thomas Walker Duke, son of Richard and Maria Walker Duke, was born 6 June 1822 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he spent his childhood. After attending private schools, he entered Virginia Military Institute and finished second in the class of 1845. Upon graduating he taught school in Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), but returned to Charlottesville when his father died in 1849, and began studying law at the University. In 1850, he started his own law practice, and over the next ten years built a law office, was chosen one of Charlottesville's first aldermen, served briefly as mayor, and became commonwealth's attorney. He married Elizabeth Scott Eskridge of Staunton, and they had two sons, William and R. T. W. Jr. (Tom), and a daughter, Mary, all of whom lived to adulthood; two other children died in childhood.","As colonel of the 48th Regiment of the Virginia Volunteers, R. T. W. Duke took an active role in the Civil War. In 1864, he resigned his commission because of a dispute with a superior officer, but re-enlisted thirty days later. He surrendered with his troops at Silas Creek in 1865, and returned to his law practice and position as commonwealth's attorney. From that time on, Duke was known as \"the Colonel,\" and in honor of his service in the recent war, the local camp for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was named for him.","In 1863 Duke bought Sunnyside, a 70-acre tract of land northeast of Charlottesville (on which the Law School is now located), and farmed this property until his death. He was chosen secretary/treasurer of the board of trustees of the Samuel Miller Fund, established in 1869. In 1870, Duke assumed the fifth district's Congressional seat for two terms as a member of the Conservative party. Lobbying for a strong South throughout his term, Duke actively opposed the 14th Amendment. R. T. W. Duke died after a lingering illness in the summer of 1898.","William R. Duke, born in 1849, possessed his father's farming instincts and commitment to political involvement. Together they farmed and resided at Sunnyside, whose ownership William shared with his brother Tom after their father's death. Although William studied law at Virginia, and in 1883 joined his father's law practice, he devoted more energy to farming and such groups as the Virginia Cattlemen's Association. In 1897 he was elected delegate to the Virginia General Assembly. Like his father, William was also involved in local affairs, serving, for example, as clerk of the Miller Fund board of trustees for many years. William died in 1929 and was survived by his sons, William (Billy) and Camman.","Since he was born in 1853, Richard Thomas Walker Duke Jr. (Tom) witnessed the Civil War during his impressionable boyhood years and later wrote about those experiences. A gifted writer and student of languages, Tom studied classics, French, German, and English literature when he entered the University of Virginia in 1870. He was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Prize for the best essay in 1872, and then turned his attention to the study of law in 1873-74. It is likely that he later read law for a time in his father's office before passing the bar. Although the practice of law became his career, Duke wrote prose and poetry the rest of his life, and was published in the New York Herald and such magazines as Century, Lippincott's, and Illustrated American.","Throughout his long career, Tom was active in town, University, and state affairs. Among the organizations in which he held office were the Masons, Zeta Psi fraternity, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Miller Board, the UVA Alumni Association, and the state Democratic Committee. He served from 1886 to 1901 as judge of the Corporation Court (now called the Circuit Court), as commonwealth's attorney from 1916 to 1920, and as a member of the Committee to Revise the Virginia Code in 1908. In addition, he sat on the boards of a variety of corporations, including the Charlottesville Ice Company, the First National Bank, and a number of Kentucky and West Virginia coal development companies in which his family had invested. From 1907 to 1910, Tom edited the Virginia Law Journal.","Tom Duke married Edith Ridgeway Slaughter in 1884, and they produced six children, of whom five grew to maturity: Mary, R. T. W. III (Walker), John Flavel Slaughter (Jack), William Eskridge, and Helen Risdon. He built a spacious home for his family at 616 Park Street. A frequent traveller because of his practice, Duke also travelled for pleasure. As the children grew up, Edith often accompanied him to New York or Washington to shop, visit friends and attend plays, or she took journeys alone to visit children and other relatives. All the Duke children, as they reached their teens, attended boarding school, and all received at least some college education. Edith Duke died suddenly in 1921, and two years later, Tom married Maymee Richardson Slaughter, his wife's sister-in-law from Lynchburg. In March of 1926 Tom died at the age of 76.","Walker, after a few years in the Navy, joined the Army and became a career officer. Jack served in the Army during World War I, and then began a career in business. In 1917, Eskridge took a law degree at Virginia and joined his father's practice. He was plagued by ill-health throughout his career, and soon after their father's death, his sister Mary, a former social worker, began assisting in the law office. Helen, a librarian, worked in New York and Norfolk for a year or so before moving back to the family home. Eskridge and his wife, Lucy Lee, had three children, of whom two, William Eskridge Jr. (Bill) and Lucy Marshall, grew to adulthood. Jack died in 1933; Eskridge, in 1959; Walker, in 1960; Mary, in 1966; and Helen, in 1984.","The Charlottesville law practice established by R. T. W. Duke in 1850 remained in the family for two succeeding generations. After studying law with John B. Minor at the University of Virginia, Duke practiced alone until 1858, when he built his office at 20 Court House Square and took James D. Jones as a partner. Another lawyer, Louis G. Hanckel, joined the firm in the early seventies and handled insurance business. When Tom finished his legal studies in 1874, he assisted his father, whose partner by then was Stephen V. Southall. In the 1880's the firm was called Duke \u0026 Duke, William having joined his father shortly before Tom became judge.","The early work of the firm was limited to real estate, debt collection, and probate work, with an occasional criminal case. In addition, there was ample time for all three lawyers to pursue their assorted outside interests. At the office each man wrote his own letters, Tom switching to a Remington typewriter in 1889, before the days when they could hire a stenographer. The Dukes handled property rentals for some of their clients, the wealthiest and best known of whom was Jefferson Levy, owner of Monticello, the Opera House, and a great deal of other property in town.","With the combination of \"the Colonel's\" death, the social and economic changes in town around the turn of the century, and the energetic leadership of Tom, the workload of the practice increased and became more diverse. Loan and bond operations were added to the civil and criminal work and property management. Around 1917, Eskridge and Clarence E. Gentry joined the firm, now called Duke, Duke and Gentry. The law office was torn down in 1922, and the firm moved to a building shared with other lawyers at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson Streets. The practice flourished, and the Dukes often hired Virginia law students or graduates as clerks or associates, including Elizabeth Tompkins (the first female graduate of the Law School), Bernard Chamberlain, Anna Dinwiddie, and John Yancy.","It has not been determined whether the Dukes sold insurance after Hanckel left, but some time after Eskridge joined the firm in the late teens, the Insurance Agency was established. The title was changed to the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville in 1923, when W. F. Carter Jr. as agent. After Carter misappropriated funds, he was relieved of his job, the agency was incorporated, and the Dukes' interest in the business was eventually bought out by William B. Murphy.","Eskridge carried on the law practice with the assistance of Mary and an occasional associate. In 1937, he wrote that his firm \"is regional and local counsel for a number of insurance companies, Virginia counsel for the Pike Coal Company, and does a general legal business, specializing in insurance, real estate, corporation and probate law, also maintains a collection department.\" With his failing health in the late forties, the practice dwindled until 1955, when Duke and Duke closed a little over a hundred years after it began.","The Duke law firm papers include correspondence, case files, legal, insuarance, and financial records, as well as ledgers. The files provide extensive documentation of a small-town family practice. Since the insurance business and the Dukes's family business affairs were handled in the same office as the law practice, these files had remained with the legal files. The family correspondence found with these papers was transferred to Special Collections in Alderman Library.","The Duke papers were transferred from the first Duke office to the second Duke office, finally to their third office on Park Street, where they apparently were shifted more than once. Things were unavoidably jumbled, but the order within the cartons, the types of file boxes and folders, and the dates made it possible to reconstruct the original filing arrangements.","This collection is rich in source material for scholars of legal, social, or local history. The first area of research focuses on the changes in the character of this small-town law practice from the post-Civil War to the post-World War II periods. There are well-documented accounts in the shifts in the type of legal work the law firm handled, the daily office operations over the years, the economic vicissitudes of the practice, and the attitudes of three generations of lawyers. There is information on the political, economic, and social conditions of the Charlottesville area during the time span of the Dukes' law practice.","Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections","Duke family","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"collection_ssim":["Duke family law firm papers, 1820/1959"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["MSS.79.6","Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","/repositories/4/resources/66"],"unitid_tesim":["MSS.79.6","Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","Previous Archival Resource Key","/repositories/4/resources/66"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"geogname_ssm":["Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century"],"geogname_ssim":["Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century"],"places_ssim":["Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 20th century"],"creator_ssm":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959"],"creator_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959"],"creator_persname_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929"],"creator_corpname_ssim":["Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections"],"creator_famname_ssim":["Duke family"],"creators_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929","Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections","Duke family"],"acqinfo_ssim":["The collection was a gift of Helen R. Duke in 1979.","The addendum to the papers of the Duke \u0026 Duke law firm was donated by William E. Duke and Lucy D. Kinne to the Law Library in October of 1985 after the death of Helen Duke, donor of the original gift."],"access_subjects_ssim":["practice of law -- Virginia","lawyers -- Virginia"],"access_subjects_ssm":["practice of law -- Virginia","lawyers -- Virginia"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"extent_ssm":["108.5  Linear Feet 232 boxes"],"extent_tesim":["108.5  Linear Feet 232 boxes"],"date_range_isim":[1820,1821,1822,1823,1824,1825,1826,1827,1828,1829,1830,1831,1832,1833,1834,1835,1836,1837,1838,1839,1840,1841,1842,1843,1844,1845,1846,1847,1848,1849,1850,1851,1852,1853,1854,1855,1856,1857,1858,1859,1860,1861,1862,1863,1864,1865,1866,1867,1868,1869,1870,1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878,1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSome of these files are restricted.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Conditions Governing Access"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["Some of these files are restricted."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe papers are organized into 8 series: 1st-6th series concern the law practice; 7th series, the insurance business; and the 8th, family business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries I. Incoming letters (boxes 1-43) -- From 1869 to 1923 (and occasionally through the 1940's) incoming letters were filed separately from other material. From 1899 to 1923 all incoming letters were stored annually in special file boxes arranged alphabetically by correspondent's name. The papers in this series are arranged as they were found.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries II. Copies of outgoing letters (boxes 44-57) -- From the 1870's through the teens copies of outgoing letters were kept chronologically in letterpress books. The books are stored in chronological order.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries III. Case files (boxes 58-125) -- The case files date back to 1874, but are concentrated between 1920 and 1955. While the dates of these case files overlap the chronological ones described above, case files were by no means regularly created until the early twenties when the other system was virtually abandoned. Since many, but not all, of the case files were numbered, it was impossible to restore them to numerical order. Therefore, they have been grouped into decades and then arranged alphabetically by title found on the original folder. If the original folder was numbered, that number is noted on the new one. The cases concern principally the settlement of debts, property and divorce, as well as, for the last few decades, insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries IV. Legal documents (boxes 126-145) -- These documents, originally stored apart from case files, are organized chronologically according to type of document, the largest groups of which are deeds (1885-1929) and titles (1876-1936). Also included in this series are documents related to specific cases (ca. 1870-1925), to the coal business, and to miscellaneous matters (ca. 1800-1950).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries V. Financial papers (boxes 146-167 and oversize) -- The financial papers were likewise apparently filed separately in the office. They include notes, bonds, collections, accounts, bills, taxes, etc., and are arranged alphabetically (ca. 1870-1950). Ledgers containing the same sort of financial records are organized by size.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries VI. General office correspondendence and cases (boxes 168-185) -- This alphabetical file, ca. 1920-1955, was apparently created for routine correspondence concerning clients and office matters. For some reason, certain cases were also incorporated into the alphabetical system, despite the fact that numbered case files continued to be created until the practice closed. (To complicate matters a bit further, there seem to have been two alphabetical files used consecutively. These have now been merged into one.) This series contains correspondence and case files, desk diaries, memoranda, unfiled office papers, and files relating to the insurance companies Eskridge represented.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries VII. Insurance agency files (boxes 186-217) -- These files of the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville, 1923-1927, cover the period in which W.F. Carter, Jr., was agent. At the beginning of the series are documents concerning the audit of the agency and the subsequent incorporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeries VIII. Family business files, civic material and miscellany (boxes 218-232) -- These records, dating from the 1880's, provide a good deal of information about the financial affairs of the Charlottesville Dukes as well as their relatives.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Arrangement"],"arrangement_tesim":["The papers are organized into 8 series: 1st-6th series concern the law practice; 7th series, the insurance business; and the 8th, family business.","Series I. Incoming letters (boxes 1-43) -- From 1869 to 1923 (and occasionally through the 1940's) incoming letters were filed separately from other material. From 1899 to 1923 all incoming letters were stored annually in special file boxes arranged alphabetically by correspondent's name. The papers in this series are arranged as they were found.","Series II. Copies of outgoing letters (boxes 44-57) -- From the 1870's through the teens copies of outgoing letters were kept chronologically in letterpress books. The books are stored in chronological order.","Series III. Case files (boxes 58-125) -- The case files date back to 1874, but are concentrated between 1920 and 1955. While the dates of these case files overlap the chronological ones described above, case files were by no means regularly created until the early twenties when the other system was virtually abandoned. Since many, but not all, of the case files were numbered, it was impossible to restore them to numerical order. Therefore, they have been grouped into decades and then arranged alphabetically by title found on the original folder. If the original folder was numbered, that number is noted on the new one. The cases concern principally the settlement of debts, property and divorce, as well as, for the last few decades, insurance claims.","Series IV. Legal documents (boxes 126-145) -- These documents, originally stored apart from case files, are organized chronologically according to type of document, the largest groups of which are deeds (1885-1929) and titles (1876-1936). Also included in this series are documents related to specific cases (ca. 1870-1925), to the coal business, and to miscellaneous matters (ca. 1800-1950).","Series V. Financial papers (boxes 146-167 and oversize) -- The financial papers were likewise apparently filed separately in the office. They include notes, bonds, collections, accounts, bills, taxes, etc., and are arranged alphabetically (ca. 1870-1950). Ledgers containing the same sort of financial records are organized by size.","Series VI. General office correspondendence and cases (boxes 168-185) -- This alphabetical file, ca. 1920-1955, was apparently created for routine correspondence concerning clients and office matters. For some reason, certain cases were also incorporated into the alphabetical system, despite the fact that numbered case files continued to be created until the practice closed. (To complicate matters a bit further, there seem to have been two alphabetical files used consecutively. These have now been merged into one.) This series contains correspondence and case files, desk diaries, memoranda, unfiled office papers, and files relating to the insurance companies Eskridge represented.","Series VII. Insurance agency files (boxes 186-217) -- These files of the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville, 1923-1927, cover the period in which W.F. Carter, Jr., was agent. At the beginning of the series are documents concerning the audit of the agency and the subsequent incorporation.","Series VIII. Family business files, civic material and miscellany (boxes 218-232) -- These records, dating from the 1880's, provide a good deal of information about the financial affairs of the Charlottesville Dukes as well as their relatives."],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eRichard Thomas Walker Duke, son of Richard and Maria Walker Duke, was born 6 June 1822 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he spent his childhood. After attending private schools, he entered Virginia Military Institute and finished second in the class of 1845. Upon graduating he taught school in Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), but returned to Charlottesville when his father died in 1849, and began studying law at the University. In 1850, he started his own law practice, and over the next ten years built a law office, was chosen one of Charlottesville's first aldermen, served briefly as mayor, and became commonwealth's attorney. He married Elizabeth Scott Eskridge of Staunton, and they had two sons, William and R. T. W. Jr. (Tom), and a daughter, Mary, all of whom lived to adulthood; two other children died in childhood.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs colonel of the 48th Regiment of the Virginia Volunteers, R. T. W. Duke took an active role in the Civil War. In 1864, he resigned his commission because of a dispute with a superior officer, but re-enlisted thirty days later. He surrendered with his troops at Silas Creek in 1865, and returned to his law practice and position as commonwealth's attorney. From that time on, Duke was known as \"the Colonel,\" and in honor of his service in the recent war, the local camp for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was named for him.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn 1863 Duke bought Sunnyside, a 70-acre tract of land northeast of Charlottesville (on which the Law School is now located), and farmed this property until his death. He was chosen secretary/treasurer of the board of trustees of the Samuel Miller Fund, established in 1869. In 1870, Duke assumed the fifth district's Congressional seat for two terms as a member of the Conservative party. Lobbying for a strong South throughout his term, Duke actively opposed the 14th Amendment. R. T. W. Duke died after a lingering illness in the summer of 1898.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWilliam R. Duke, born in 1849, possessed his father's farming instincts and commitment to political involvement. Together they farmed and resided at Sunnyside, whose ownership William shared with his brother Tom after their father's death. Although William studied law at Virginia, and in 1883 joined his father's law practice, he devoted more energy to farming and such groups as the Virginia Cattlemen's Association. In 1897 he was elected delegate to the Virginia General Assembly. Like his father, William was also involved in local affairs, serving, for example, as clerk of the Miller Fund board of trustees for many years. William died in 1929 and was survived by his sons, William (Billy) and Camman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince he was born in 1853, Richard Thomas Walker Duke Jr. (Tom) witnessed the Civil War during his impressionable boyhood years and later wrote about those experiences. A gifted writer and student of languages, Tom studied classics, French, German, and English literature when he entered the University of Virginia in 1870. He was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Prize for the best essay in 1872, and then turned his attention to the study of law in 1873-74. It is likely that he later read law for a time in his father's office before passing the bar. Although the practice of law became his career, Duke wrote prose and poetry the rest of his life, and was published in the New York Herald and such magazines as Century, Lippincott's, and Illustrated American.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThroughout his long career, Tom was active in town, University, and state affairs. Among the organizations in which he held office were the Masons, Zeta Psi fraternity, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Miller Board, the UVA Alumni Association, and the state Democratic Committee. He served from 1886 to 1901 as judge of the Corporation Court (now called the Circuit Court), as commonwealth's attorney from 1916 to 1920, and as a member of the Committee to Revise the Virginia Code in 1908. In addition, he sat on the boards of a variety of corporations, including the Charlottesville Ice Company, the First National Bank, and a number of Kentucky and West Virginia coal development companies in which his family had invested. From 1907 to 1910, Tom edited the Virginia Law Journal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTom Duke married Edith Ridgeway Slaughter in 1884, and they produced six children, of whom five grew to maturity: Mary, R. T. W. III (Walker), John Flavel Slaughter (Jack), William Eskridge, and Helen Risdon. He built a spacious home for his family at 616 Park Street. A frequent traveller because of his practice, Duke also travelled for pleasure. As the children grew up, Edith often accompanied him to New York or Washington to shop, visit friends and attend plays, or she took journeys alone to visit children and other relatives. All the Duke children, as they reached their teens, attended boarding school, and all received at least some college education. Edith Duke died suddenly in 1921, and two years later, Tom married Maymee Richardson Slaughter, his wife's sister-in-law from Lynchburg. In March of 1926 Tom died at the age of 76.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWalker, after a few years in the Navy, joined the Army and became a career officer. Jack served in the Army during World War I, and then began a career in business. In 1917, Eskridge took a law degree at Virginia and joined his father's practice. He was plagued by ill-health throughout his career, and soon after their father's death, his sister Mary, a former social worker, began assisting in the law office. Helen, a librarian, worked in New York and Norfolk for a year or so before moving back to the family home. Eskridge and his wife, Lucy Lee, had three children, of whom two, William Eskridge Jr. (Bill) and Lucy Marshall, grew to adulthood. Jack died in 1933; Eskridge, in 1959; Walker, in 1960; Mary, in 1966; and Helen, in 1984.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Charlottesville law practice established by R. T. W. Duke in 1850 remained in the family for two succeeding generations. After studying law with John B. Minor at the University of Virginia, Duke practiced alone until 1858, when he built his office at 20 Court House Square and took James D. Jones as a partner. Another lawyer, Louis G. Hanckel, joined the firm in the early seventies and handled insurance business. When Tom finished his legal studies in 1874, he assisted his father, whose partner by then was Stephen V. Southall. In the 1880's the firm was called Duke \u0026amp; Duke, William having joined his father shortly before Tom became judge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe early work of the firm was limited to real estate, debt collection, and probate work, with an occasional criminal case. In addition, there was ample time for all three lawyers to pursue their assorted outside interests. At the office each man wrote his own letters, Tom switching to a Remington typewriter in 1889, before the days when they could hire a stenographer. The Dukes handled property rentals for some of their clients, the wealthiest and best known of whom was Jefferson Levy, owner of Monticello, the Opera House, and a great deal of other property in town.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWith the combination of \"the Colonel's\" death, the social and economic changes in town around the turn of the century, and the energetic leadership of Tom, the workload of the practice increased and became more diverse. Loan and bond operations were added to the civil and criminal work and property management. Around 1917, Eskridge and Clarence E. Gentry joined the firm, now called Duke, Duke and Gentry. The law office was torn down in 1922, and the firm moved to a building shared with other lawyers at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson Streets. The practice flourished, and the Dukes often hired Virginia law students or graduates as clerks or associates, including Elizabeth Tompkins (the first female graduate of the Law School), Bernard Chamberlain, Anna Dinwiddie, and John Yancy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIt has not been determined whether the Dukes sold insurance after Hanckel left, but some time after Eskridge joined the firm in the late teens, the Insurance Agency was established. The title was changed to the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville in 1923, when W. F. Carter Jr. as agent. After Carter misappropriated funds, he was relieved of his job, the agency was incorporated, and the Dukes' interest in the business was eventually bought out by William B. Murphy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEskridge carried on the law practice with the assistance of Mary and an occasional associate. In 1937, he wrote that his firm \"is regional and local counsel for a number of insurance companies, Virginia counsel for the Pike Coal Company, and does a general legal business, specializing in insurance, real estate, corporation and probate law, also maintains a collection department.\" With his failing health in the late forties, the practice dwindled until 1955, when Duke and Duke closed a little over a hundred years after it began.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Biographical / Historical"],"bioghist_tesim":["Richard Thomas Walker Duke, son of Richard and Maria Walker Duke, was born 6 June 1822 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he spent his childhood. After attending private schools, he entered Virginia Military Institute and finished second in the class of 1845. Upon graduating he taught school in Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia), but returned to Charlottesville when his father died in 1849, and began studying law at the University. In 1850, he started his own law practice, and over the next ten years built a law office, was chosen one of Charlottesville's first aldermen, served briefly as mayor, and became commonwealth's attorney. He married Elizabeth Scott Eskridge of Staunton, and they had two sons, William and R. T. W. Jr. (Tom), and a daughter, Mary, all of whom lived to adulthood; two other children died in childhood.","As colonel of the 48th Regiment of the Virginia Volunteers, R. T. W. Duke took an active role in the Civil War. In 1864, he resigned his commission because of a dispute with a superior officer, but re-enlisted thirty days later. He surrendered with his troops at Silas Creek in 1865, and returned to his law practice and position as commonwealth's attorney. From that time on, Duke was known as \"the Colonel,\" and in honor of his service in the recent war, the local camp for the Sons of Confederate Veterans was named for him.","In 1863 Duke bought Sunnyside, a 70-acre tract of land northeast of Charlottesville (on which the Law School is now located), and farmed this property until his death. He was chosen secretary/treasurer of the board of trustees of the Samuel Miller Fund, established in 1869. In 1870, Duke assumed the fifth district's Congressional seat for two terms as a member of the Conservative party. Lobbying for a strong South throughout his term, Duke actively opposed the 14th Amendment. R. T. W. Duke died after a lingering illness in the summer of 1898.","William R. Duke, born in 1849, possessed his father's farming instincts and commitment to political involvement. Together they farmed and resided at Sunnyside, whose ownership William shared with his brother Tom after their father's death. Although William studied law at Virginia, and in 1883 joined his father's law practice, he devoted more energy to farming and such groups as the Virginia Cattlemen's Association. In 1897 he was elected delegate to the Virginia General Assembly. Like his father, William was also involved in local affairs, serving, for example, as clerk of the Miller Fund board of trustees for many years. William died in 1929 and was survived by his sons, William (Billy) and Camman.","Since he was born in 1853, Richard Thomas Walker Duke Jr. (Tom) witnessed the Civil War during his impressionable boyhood years and later wrote about those experiences. A gifted writer and student of languages, Tom studied classics, French, German, and English literature when he entered the University of Virginia in 1870. He was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Prize for the best essay in 1872, and then turned his attention to the study of law in 1873-74. It is likely that he later read law for a time in his father's office before passing the bar. Although the practice of law became his career, Duke wrote prose and poetry the rest of his life, and was published in the New York Herald and such magazines as Century, Lippincott's, and Illustrated American.","Throughout his long career, Tom was active in town, University, and state affairs. Among the organizations in which he held office were the Masons, Zeta Psi fraternity, the Sons of the American Revolution, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Miller Board, the UVA Alumni Association, and the state Democratic Committee. He served from 1886 to 1901 as judge of the Corporation Court (now called the Circuit Court), as commonwealth's attorney from 1916 to 1920, and as a member of the Committee to Revise the Virginia Code in 1908. In addition, he sat on the boards of a variety of corporations, including the Charlottesville Ice Company, the First National Bank, and a number of Kentucky and West Virginia coal development companies in which his family had invested. From 1907 to 1910, Tom edited the Virginia Law Journal.","Tom Duke married Edith Ridgeway Slaughter in 1884, and they produced six children, of whom five grew to maturity: Mary, R. T. W. III (Walker), John Flavel Slaughter (Jack), William Eskridge, and Helen Risdon. He built a spacious home for his family at 616 Park Street. A frequent traveller because of his practice, Duke also travelled for pleasure. As the children grew up, Edith often accompanied him to New York or Washington to shop, visit friends and attend plays, or she took journeys alone to visit children and other relatives. All the Duke children, as they reached their teens, attended boarding school, and all received at least some college education. Edith Duke died suddenly in 1921, and two years later, Tom married Maymee Richardson Slaughter, his wife's sister-in-law from Lynchburg. In March of 1926 Tom died at the age of 76.","Walker, after a few years in the Navy, joined the Army and became a career officer. Jack served in the Army during World War I, and then began a career in business. In 1917, Eskridge took a law degree at Virginia and joined his father's practice. He was plagued by ill-health throughout his career, and soon after their father's death, his sister Mary, a former social worker, began assisting in the law office. Helen, a librarian, worked in New York and Norfolk for a year or so before moving back to the family home. Eskridge and his wife, Lucy Lee, had three children, of whom two, William Eskridge Jr. (Bill) and Lucy Marshall, grew to adulthood. Jack died in 1933; Eskridge, in 1959; Walker, in 1960; Mary, in 1966; and Helen, in 1984.","The Charlottesville law practice established by R. T. W. Duke in 1850 remained in the family for two succeeding generations. After studying law with John B. Minor at the University of Virginia, Duke practiced alone until 1858, when he built his office at 20 Court House Square and took James D. Jones as a partner. Another lawyer, Louis G. Hanckel, joined the firm in the early seventies and handled insurance business. When Tom finished his legal studies in 1874, he assisted his father, whose partner by then was Stephen V. Southall. In the 1880's the firm was called Duke \u0026 Duke, William having joined his father shortly before Tom became judge.","The early work of the firm was limited to real estate, debt collection, and probate work, with an occasional criminal case. In addition, there was ample time for all three lawyers to pursue their assorted outside interests. At the office each man wrote his own letters, Tom switching to a Remington typewriter in 1889, before the days when they could hire a stenographer. The Dukes handled property rentals for some of their clients, the wealthiest and best known of whom was Jefferson Levy, owner of Monticello, the Opera House, and a great deal of other property in town.","With the combination of \"the Colonel's\" death, the social and economic changes in town around the turn of the century, and the energetic leadership of Tom, the workload of the practice increased and became more diverse. Loan and bond operations were added to the civil and criminal work and property management. Around 1917, Eskridge and Clarence E. Gentry joined the firm, now called Duke, Duke and Gentry. The law office was torn down in 1922, and the firm moved to a building shared with other lawyers at the corner of Fifth and Jefferson Streets. The practice flourished, and the Dukes often hired Virginia law students or graduates as clerks or associates, including Elizabeth Tompkins (the first female graduate of the Law School), Bernard Chamberlain, Anna Dinwiddie, and John Yancy.","It has not been determined whether the Dukes sold insurance after Hanckel left, but some time after Eskridge joined the firm in the late teens, the Insurance Agency was established. The title was changed to the Insurance Agency of Charlottesville in 1923, when W. F. Carter Jr. as agent. After Carter misappropriated funds, he was relieved of his job, the agency was incorporated, and the Dukes' interest in the business was eventually bought out by William B. Murphy.","Eskridge carried on the law practice with the assistance of Mary and an occasional associate. In 1937, he wrote that his firm \"is regional and local counsel for a number of insurance companies, Virginia counsel for the Pike Coal Company, and does a general legal business, specializing in insurance, real estate, corporation and probate law, also maintains a collection department.\" With his failing health in the late forties, the practice dwindled until 1955, when Duke and Duke closed a little over a hundred years after it began."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Duke law firm papers include correspondence, case files, legal, insuarance, and financial records, as well as ledgers. The files provide extensive documentation of a small-town family practice. Since the insurance business and the Dukes's family business affairs were handled in the same office as the law practice, these files had remained with the legal files. The family correspondence found with these papers was transferred to Special Collections in Alderman Library. \u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Duke papers were transferred from the first Duke office to the second Duke office, finally to their third office on Park Street, where they apparently were shifted more than once. Things were unavoidably jumbled, but the order within the cartons, the types of file boxes and folders, and the dates made it possible to reconstruct the original filing arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThis collection is rich in source material for scholars of legal, social, or local history. The first area of research focuses on the changes in the character of this small-town law practice from the post-Civil War to the post-World War II periods. There are well-documented accounts in the shifts in the type of legal work the law firm handled, the daily office operations over the years, the economic vicissitudes of the practice, and the attitudes of three generations of lawyers. There is information on the political, economic, and social conditions of the Charlottesville area during the time span of the Dukes' law practice.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Contents"],"scopecontent_tesim":["The Duke law firm papers include correspondence, case files, legal, insuarance, and financial records, as well as ledgers. The files provide extensive documentation of a small-town family practice. Since the insurance business and the Dukes's family business affairs were handled in the same office as the law practice, these files had remained with the legal files. The family correspondence found with these papers was transferred to Special Collections in Alderman Library.","The Duke papers were transferred from the first Duke office to the second Duke office, finally to their third office on Park Street, where they apparently were shifted more than once. Things were unavoidably jumbled, but the order within the cartons, the types of file boxes and folders, and the dates made it possible to reconstruct the original filing arrangements.","This collection is rich in source material for scholars of legal, social, or local history. The first area of research focuses on the changes in the character of this small-town law practice from the post-Civil War to the post-World War II periods. There are well-documented accounts in the shifts in the type of legal work the law firm handled, the daily office operations over the years, the economic vicissitudes of the practice, and the attitudes of three generations of lawyers. There is information on the political, economic, and social conditions of the Charlottesville area during the time span of the Dukes' law practice."],"corpname_ssim":["Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections"],"famname_ssim":["Duke family"],"names_coll_ssim":["Duke family","Duke, William R., 1849-1929","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926"],"persname_ssim":["Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929"],"names_ssim":["Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections","Duke family","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1822-1898","Duke, R. T. W. (Richard Thomas Walker), 1853-1926","Duke, William Eskridge, 1893-1959","Duke, William R., 1849-1929"],"language_ssim":["English"],"descrules_ssm":["Describing Archives: A Content Standard"],"total_component_count_is":1908,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-09-17T13:57:56.004Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_4_resources_66_c06_c177"}},{"id":"viu_viu00187_c03_c15","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"Unidentified Photographs - Groups \u0026\n Families, 1887/1963","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00187_c03_c15#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_viu00187_c03_c15","ref_ssm":["viu_viu00187_c03_c15"],"id":"viu_viu00187_c03_c15","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00187","_root_":"viu_viu00187","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00187_c03","parent_ssi":"viu_viu00187_c03","parent_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_viu00187","viu_viu00187_c03"],"title_filing_ssi":"Unidentified Photographs - Groups \u0026\n                  Families","title_ssm":["Unidentified Photographs - Groups \u0026\n Families"],"title_tesim":["Unidentified Photographs - Groups \u0026\n Families"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Unidentified Photographs - Groups \u0026\n Families, 1887/1963"],"text":["Unidentified Photographs - Groups \u0026\n Families, 1887/1963","Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS","Box Box 33"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1887/1963"],"unitdate_other_ssim":["1887, 1963, \u0026 n.d."],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":151,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"containers_ssim":["Box Box 33"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["There are no restrictions."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"date_range_isim":[1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959,1960,1961,1962,1963],"_nest_path_":"/components#2/components#14","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:55:49.050Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_viu00187","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00187","_root_":"viu_viu00187","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00187","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/uva-sc/viu00187.xml","title_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"title_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"text":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","9521-h","ca. 10,400 items","There are no restrictions.","Because this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.","Due to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)","Slaughter Family","Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.","A. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               m. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee m. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray a \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)b. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)c. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\n          B. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\n          C. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister a. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)b. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\n          D. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               a. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson b. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)c. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \n          E. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\n          F. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\n          G. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )","Duke Family","Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:","A. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               a. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)b. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)c. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\n          B. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\n          C. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               m. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)b. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     m. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)m. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta (1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")c. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)d. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee (i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston (iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne e. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)f. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)m. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\n          D. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\n          E. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter a. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  (i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)","This addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         Charlottesvillefamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         Lynchburg, Virginia. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.","The overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).","The correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.","The letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .","The alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.","Letters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         England's preparation for World War I and\n         Germany's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         Europe; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         Scotland.","The group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .","The letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.","A third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         Europewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         England, \n         Holland, \n         Germany, \n         Switzerland, and \n         France, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.","The fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.","Jack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         Post Field, Sill, Oklahoma, and at \n         Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         Annapolis, Marylandand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         Franceas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.","R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         Ft. Sheridan, Illinois. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         Europerun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         Washington, D.C.(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).","Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .","Another interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         Naples, \n         Athens, \n         Marseilles, \n         Guam, and \n         Yokosuka, Japan, 1949-1951.","The correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.","The \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         Europe(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         Chinaduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         Mexico(July 25, 1928) and the \n         Middle East(November 4, 1935).","Most of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         Duluth, Minnesota(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         Philadelphia(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         Ireland, \n         Scotland, and \n         England(July 24, August 1 \u0026 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         Sandwichin \n         Canadaduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         Bostonand \n         Montreal(August 1 \u0026 11, 1851).","Of note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         Stauntonabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.","Also of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         Wisuh, China. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         Ural Mountainsnear \n         [Tagelove ?], Russia, during World War\n         I.","The last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .","The other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.","The manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","Other types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.","The photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.","Series four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         United States, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         United Statespostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.","The papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","The last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs.","See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"collection_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["9521-h"],"unitid_tesim":["9521-h"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"access_terms_ssm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"acqinfo_ssim":["The Duke family papers were given to the Library by Mrs. Gerald Kinne of Setauket, New York, and Mr. William E. Duke\n            of Richmond, Virginia, on August 20, 1985."],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"physdesc_tesim":["ca. 10,400 items"],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThere are no restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access Restrictions"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["There are no restrictions."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eBecause this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eDue to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization"],"arrangement_tesim":["Because this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.","Due to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)"],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003e\n         Slaughter Family \n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n        \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eA. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eB. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eC. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eD. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eE. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eF. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eG. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )\u003c/item\u003e\n        \u003c/list\u003e\n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n         Duke Family \n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n        \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eA. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eB. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eC. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ed. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e(i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ee. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ef. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eD. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eE. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e(i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n        \u003c/list\u003e\n      \u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Genealogical Information"],"bioghist_tesim":["Slaughter Family","Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.","A. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               m. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee m. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray a \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)b. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)c. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\n          B. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\n          C. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister a. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)b. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\n          D. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               a. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson b. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)c. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \n          E. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\n          F. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\n          G. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )","Duke Family","Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:","A. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               a. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)b. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)c. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\n          B. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\n          C. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               m. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)b. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     m. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)m. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta (1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")c. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)d. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee (i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston (iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne e. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)f. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)m. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\n          D. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\n          E. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter a. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  (i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)"],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eDuke Family Papers, Accession #9521-h, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottessville, Va.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"prefercite_tesim":["Duke Family Papers, Accession #9521-h, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottessville, Va."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThis addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eCharlottesville\u003c/geogname\u003efamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eLynchburg, Virginia\u003c/geogname\u003e. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLetters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e's preparation for World War I and\n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGermany\u003c/geogname\u003e's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003e; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eScotland\u003c/geogname\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eA third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003ewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eHolland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGermany\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eSwitzerland\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFrance\u003c/geogname\u003e, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eJack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003ePost Field, Sill, Oklahoma\u003c/geogname\u003e, and at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFt. Leavenworth, Kansas\u003c/geogname\u003e, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eAnnapolis, Maryland\u003c/geogname\u003eand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFrance\u003c/geogname\u003eas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFt. Sheridan, Illinois\u003c/geogname\u003e. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003erun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eWashington, D.C.\u003c/geogname\u003e(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAnother interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eNaples\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eAthens\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMarseilles\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGuam\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eYokosuka, Japan\u003c/geogname\u003e, 1949-1951.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003e(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eChina\u003c/geogname\u003eduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMexico\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 25, 1928) and the \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMiddle East\u003c/geogname\u003e(November 4, 1935).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eMost of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eDuluth, Minnesota\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003ePhiladelphia\u003c/geogname\u003e(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eIreland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eScotland\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 24, August 1 \u0026amp; 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eSandwich\u003c/geogname\u003ein \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eCanada\u003c/geogname\u003eduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eBoston\u003c/geogname\u003eand \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMontreal\u003c/geogname\u003e(August 1 \u0026amp; 11, 1851).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOf note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eStaunton\u003c/geogname\u003eabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAlso of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eWisuh, China\u003c/geogname\u003e. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUral Mountains\u003c/geogname\u003enear \n         \u003cgeogname\u003e[Tagelove ?], Russia\u003c/geogname\u003e, during World War\n         I.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOther types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eSeries four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUnited States\u003c/geogname\u003e, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUnited States\u003c/geogname\u003epostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content"],"scopecontent_tesim":["This addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         Charlottesvillefamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         Lynchburg, Virginia. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.","The overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).","The correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.","The letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .","The alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.","Letters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         England's preparation for World War I and\n         Germany's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         Europe; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         Scotland.","The group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .","The letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.","A third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         Europewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         England, \n         Holland, \n         Germany, \n         Switzerland, and \n         France, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.","The fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.","Jack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         Post Field, Sill, Oklahoma, and at \n         Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         Annapolis, Marylandand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         Franceas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.","R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         Ft. Sheridan, Illinois. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         Europerun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         Washington, D.C.(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).","Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .","Another interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         Naples, \n         Athens, \n         Marseilles, \n         Guam, and \n         Yokosuka, Japan, 1949-1951.","The correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.","The \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         Europe(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         Chinaduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         Mexico(July 25, 1928) and the \n         Middle East(November 4, 1935).","Most of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         Duluth, Minnesota(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         Philadelphia(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         Ireland, \n         Scotland, and \n         England(July 24, August 1 \u0026 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         Sandwichin \n         Canadaduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         Bostonand \n         Montreal(August 1 \u0026 11, 1851).","Of note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         Stauntonabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.","Also of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         Wisuh, China. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         Ural Mountainsnear \n         [Tagelove ?], Russia, during World War\n         I.","The last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .","The other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.","The manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","Other types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.","The photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.","Series four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         United States, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         United Statespostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.","The papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","The last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSee the \n            \u003cextref type=\"simple\" href=\"https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/use-of-materials\"\u003e\n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.\u003c/extref\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Use Restrictions"],"userestrict_tesim":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"physloc_html_tesm":["\u003cphysloc\u003e\u003c/physloc\u003e\n      "],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":229,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:55:49.050Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00187_c03_c15"}},{"id":"viu_viu00187_c03_c16","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"Unidentified Photographs - Men, 1905/1937","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00187_c03_c16#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_viu00187_c03_c16","ref_ssm":["viu_viu00187_c03_c16"],"id":"viu_viu00187_c03_c16","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00187","_root_":"viu_viu00187","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00187_c03","parent_ssi":"viu_viu00187_c03","parent_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_viu00187","viu_viu00187_c03"],"title_filing_ssi":"Unidentified Photographs - Men","title_ssm":["Unidentified Photographs - Men"],"title_tesim":["Unidentified Photographs - Men"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Unidentified Photographs - Men, 1905/1937"],"text":["Unidentified Photographs - Men, 1905/1937","Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS","Box Box 33"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1905/1937"],"unitdate_other_ssim":["1905-1937, \u0026 n.d."],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":152,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"containers_ssim":["Box Box 33"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["There are no restrictions."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"date_range_isim":[1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937],"_nest_path_":"/components#2/components#15","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:55:49.050Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_viu00187","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00187","_root_":"viu_viu00187","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00187","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/uva-sc/viu00187.xml","title_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"title_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"text":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","9521-h","ca. 10,400 items","There are no restrictions.","Because this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.","Due to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)","Slaughter Family","Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.","A. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               m. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee m. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray a \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)b. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)c. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\n          B. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\n          C. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister a. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)b. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\n          D. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               a. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson b. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)c. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \n          E. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\n          F. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\n          G. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )","Duke Family","Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:","A. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               a. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)b. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)c. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\n          B. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\n          C. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               m. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)b. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     m. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)m. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta (1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")c. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)d. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee (i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston (iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne e. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)f. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)m. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\n          D. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\n          E. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter a. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  (i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)","This addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         Charlottesvillefamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         Lynchburg, Virginia. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.","The overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).","The correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.","The letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .","The alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.","Letters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         England's preparation for World War I and\n         Germany's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         Europe; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         Scotland.","The group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .","The letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.","A third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         Europewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         England, \n         Holland, \n         Germany, \n         Switzerland, and \n         France, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.","The fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.","Jack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         Post Field, Sill, Oklahoma, and at \n         Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         Annapolis, Marylandand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         Franceas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.","R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         Ft. Sheridan, Illinois. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         Europerun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         Washington, D.C.(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).","Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .","Another interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         Naples, \n         Athens, \n         Marseilles, \n         Guam, and \n         Yokosuka, Japan, 1949-1951.","The correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.","The \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         Europe(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         Chinaduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         Mexico(July 25, 1928) and the \n         Middle East(November 4, 1935).","Most of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         Duluth, Minnesota(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         Philadelphia(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         Ireland, \n         Scotland, and \n         England(July 24, August 1 \u0026 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         Sandwichin \n         Canadaduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         Bostonand \n         Montreal(August 1 \u0026 11, 1851).","Of note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         Stauntonabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.","Also of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         Wisuh, China. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         Ural Mountainsnear \n         [Tagelove ?], Russia, during World War\n         I.","The last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .","The other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.","The manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","Other types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.","The photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.","Series four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         United States, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         United Statespostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.","The papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","The last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs.","See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"collection_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["9521-h"],"unitid_tesim":["9521-h"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"access_terms_ssm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"acqinfo_ssim":["The Duke family papers were given to the Library by Mrs. Gerald Kinne of Setauket, New York, and Mr. William E. Duke\n            of Richmond, Virginia, on August 20, 1985."],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"physdesc_tesim":["ca. 10,400 items"],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThere are no restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access Restrictions"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["There are no restrictions."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eBecause this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eDue to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization"],"arrangement_tesim":["Because this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.","Due to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)"],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003e\n         Slaughter Family \n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n        \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eA. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eB. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eC. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eD. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eE. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eF. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eG. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )\u003c/item\u003e\n        \u003c/list\u003e\n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n         Duke Family \n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n        \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eA. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eB. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eC. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ed. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e(i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ee. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ef. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eD. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eE. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e(i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n        \u003c/list\u003e\n      \u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Genealogical Information"],"bioghist_tesim":["Slaughter Family","Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.","A. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               m. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee m. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray a \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)b. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)c. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\n          B. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\n          C. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister a. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)b. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\n          D. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               a. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson b. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)c. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \n          E. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\n          F. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\n          G. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )","Duke Family","Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:","A. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               a. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)b. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)c. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\n          B. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\n          C. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               m. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)b. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     m. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)m. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta (1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")c. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)d. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee (i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston (iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne e. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)f. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)m. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\n          D. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\n          E. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter a. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  (i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)"],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eDuke Family Papers, Accession #9521-h, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottessville, Va.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"prefercite_tesim":["Duke Family Papers, Accession #9521-h, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottessville, Va."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThis addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eCharlottesville\u003c/geogname\u003efamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eLynchburg, Virginia\u003c/geogname\u003e. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLetters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e's preparation for World War I and\n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGermany\u003c/geogname\u003e's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003e; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eScotland\u003c/geogname\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eA third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003ewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eHolland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGermany\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eSwitzerland\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFrance\u003c/geogname\u003e, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eJack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003ePost Field, Sill, Oklahoma\u003c/geogname\u003e, and at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFt. Leavenworth, Kansas\u003c/geogname\u003e, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eAnnapolis, Maryland\u003c/geogname\u003eand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFrance\u003c/geogname\u003eas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFt. Sheridan, Illinois\u003c/geogname\u003e. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003erun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eWashington, D.C.\u003c/geogname\u003e(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAnother interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eNaples\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eAthens\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMarseilles\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGuam\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eYokosuka, Japan\u003c/geogname\u003e, 1949-1951.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003e(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eChina\u003c/geogname\u003eduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMexico\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 25, 1928) and the \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMiddle East\u003c/geogname\u003e(November 4, 1935).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eMost of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eDuluth, Minnesota\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003ePhiladelphia\u003c/geogname\u003e(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eIreland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eScotland\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 24, August 1 \u0026amp; 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eSandwich\u003c/geogname\u003ein \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eCanada\u003c/geogname\u003eduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eBoston\u003c/geogname\u003eand \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMontreal\u003c/geogname\u003e(August 1 \u0026amp; 11, 1851).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOf note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eStaunton\u003c/geogname\u003eabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAlso of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eWisuh, China\u003c/geogname\u003e. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUral Mountains\u003c/geogname\u003enear \n         \u003cgeogname\u003e[Tagelove ?], Russia\u003c/geogname\u003e, during World War\n         I.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOther types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eSeries four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUnited States\u003c/geogname\u003e, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUnited States\u003c/geogname\u003epostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content"],"scopecontent_tesim":["This addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         Charlottesvillefamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         Lynchburg, Virginia. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.","The overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).","The correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.","The letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .","The alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.","Letters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         England's preparation for World War I and\n         Germany's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         Europe; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         Scotland.","The group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .","The letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.","A third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         Europewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         England, \n         Holland, \n         Germany, \n         Switzerland, and \n         France, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.","The fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.","Jack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         Post Field, Sill, Oklahoma, and at \n         Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         Annapolis, Marylandand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         Franceas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.","R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         Ft. Sheridan, Illinois. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         Europerun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         Washington, D.C.(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).","Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .","Another interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         Naples, \n         Athens, \n         Marseilles, \n         Guam, and \n         Yokosuka, Japan, 1949-1951.","The correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.","The \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         Europe(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         Chinaduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         Mexico(July 25, 1928) and the \n         Middle East(November 4, 1935).","Most of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         Duluth, Minnesota(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         Philadelphia(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         Ireland, \n         Scotland, and \n         England(July 24, August 1 \u0026 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         Sandwichin \n         Canadaduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         Bostonand \n         Montreal(August 1 \u0026 11, 1851).","Of note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         Stauntonabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.","Also of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         Wisuh, China. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         Ural Mountainsnear \n         [Tagelove ?], Russia, during World War\n         I.","The last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .","The other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.","The manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","Other types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.","The photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.","Series four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         United States, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         United Statespostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.","The papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","The last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSee the \n            \u003cextref type=\"simple\" href=\"https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/use-of-materials\"\u003e\n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.\u003c/extref\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Use Restrictions"],"userestrict_tesim":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"physloc_html_tesm":["\u003cphysloc\u003e\u003c/physloc\u003e\n      "],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":229,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:55:49.050Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00187_c03_c16"}},{"id":"viu_viu00187_c03_c18","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"Unidentified Photographs -\n Women, 1886/1953","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00187_c03_c18#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_viu00187_c03_c18","ref_ssm":["viu_viu00187_c03_c18"],"id":"viu_viu00187_c03_c18","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00187","_root_":"viu_viu00187","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00187_c03","parent_ssi":"viu_viu00187_c03","parent_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_viu00187","viu_viu00187_c03"],"title_filing_ssi":"Unidentified Photographs -\n                  Women","title_ssm":["Unidentified Photographs -\n Women"],"title_tesim":["Unidentified Photographs -\n Women"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Unidentified Photographs -\n Women, 1886/1953"],"text":["Unidentified Photographs -\n Women, 1886/1953","Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS","Box Box 33"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","SERIES III: PHOTOGRAPHS"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1886/1953"],"unitdate_other_ssim":["1886-1953, \u0026 n.d."],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":154,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"extent_ssm":["(2 folders)"],"extent_tesim":["(2 folders)"],"containers_ssim":["Box Box 33"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["There are no restrictions."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"date_range_isim":[1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953],"_nest_path_":"/components#2/components#17","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:55:49.050Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_viu00187","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00187","_root_":"viu_viu00187","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00187","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/uva-sc/viu00187.xml","title_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"title_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"text":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983","9521-h","ca. 10,400 items","There are no restrictions.","Because this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.","Due to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)","Slaughter Family","Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.","A. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               m. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee m. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray a \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)b. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)c. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\n          B. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\n          C. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister a. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)b. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\n          D. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               a. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson b. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)c. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \n          E. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\n          F. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\n          G. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )","Duke Family","Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:","A. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               a. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)b. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)c. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\n          B. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\n          C. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               m. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)b. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     m. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)m. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta (1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")c. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)d. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee (i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston (iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne e. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)f. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)m. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\n          D. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\n          E. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter a. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  (i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)","This addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         Charlottesvillefamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         Lynchburg, Virginia. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.","The overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).","The correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.","The letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .","The alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.","Letters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         England's preparation for World War I and\n         Germany's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         Europe; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         Scotland.","The group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .","The letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.","A third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         Europewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         England, \n         Holland, \n         Germany, \n         Switzerland, and \n         France, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.","The fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.","Jack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         Post Field, Sill, Oklahoma, and at \n         Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         Annapolis, Marylandand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         Franceas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.","R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         Ft. Sheridan, Illinois. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         Europerun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         Washington, D.C.(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).","Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .","Another interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         Naples, \n         Athens, \n         Marseilles, \n         Guam, and \n         Yokosuka, Japan, 1949-1951.","The correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.","The \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         Europe(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         Chinaduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         Mexico(July 25, 1928) and the \n         Middle East(November 4, 1935).","Most of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         Duluth, Minnesota(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         Philadelphia(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         Ireland, \n         Scotland, and \n         England(July 24, August 1 \u0026 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         Sandwichin \n         Canadaduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         Bostonand \n         Montreal(August 1 \u0026 11, 1851).","Of note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         Stauntonabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.","Also of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         Wisuh, China. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         Ural Mountainsnear \n         [Tagelove ?], Russia, during World War\n         I.","The last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .","The other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.","The manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","Other types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.","The photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.","Series four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         United States, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         United Statespostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.","The papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","The last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs.","See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"collection_ssim":["Duke Family Papers \n 1764-1983"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["9521-h"],"unitid_tesim":["9521-h"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"access_terms_ssm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"acqinfo_ssim":["The Duke family papers were given to the Library by Mrs. Gerald Kinne of Setauket, New York, and Mr. William E. Duke\n            of Richmond, Virginia, on August 20, 1985."],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"physdesc_tesim":["ca. 10,400 items"],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThere are no restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access Restrictions"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["There are no restrictions."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eBecause this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eDue to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization"],"arrangement_tesim":["Because this collection was not received by the Library in\n         any discernible order, the material has been arbitrarily\n         placed into seven different series. These include: I)\n         Correspondence; II) Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Papers; III)\n         Photographs; IV) Bound Volumes and Notebooks; V) Postcards;\n         VI) Papers from the Duke and Duke law firm; and VII) Oversize\n         Items.","Due to the large amount of correspondence present in this\n         collection, the correspondence series has been further broken\n         down into seven subseries: A) Letters to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 1-9); B) Letters\n         to \n          Edith Duke (boxes 10-11); C) Letters from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke (box 12); D) Letters to and\n         from the children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (boxes 13-20); E) \n          Slaughter Family Correspondence (boxes\n         20-22); F) Miscellaneous Correspondence (box 23); G) Topical\n         Correspondence (box 24)"],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003e\n         Slaughter Family \n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n        \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eA. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eB. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eC. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eD. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eE. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eF. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eG. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )\u003c/item\u003e\n        \u003c/list\u003e\n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n         Duke Family \n      \u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\n        \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eA. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eB. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eC. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003eb. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ec. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ed. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e(i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston \u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne \u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ee. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003ef. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003em. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eD. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\u003c/item\u003e\n          \u003citem\u003eE. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003ea. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  \u003clist type=\"simple\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e(i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003citem\u003e(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\u003c/list\u003e\u003c/item\u003e\n        \u003c/list\u003e\n      \u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Genealogical Information"],"bioghist_tesim":["Slaughter Family","Edith Ridgeway married \n          Charles M. Harker (d. 1876), and their\n         daughter \n          Mary Haines Harker (d. 1897) married\n         (1853) \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. (1828-1893),\n         son of \n          Robert Harrison Slaughter , and \n          Mary Rice Garland , whom he married in\n         1818. Seven of \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter 's children survived\n         to adulthood. The following genealogical information is\n         incomplete.","A. \n                Charles Slaughter , M.D. \n               m. (1) \n                   Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby m. \n                      Claude Marshall Lee m. (2) \n                   Hattie Gray a \n                      Charles Slaughter,\n                     Jr. (1887-1953)b. \n                      John\n                     Slaughter (1888-1889)c. \n                      Susan Gray\n                     Slaughter (1890-?)\n          B. \n                John Flavel Slaughter,\n               Jr. (1856-?)\n          C. \n                Robert Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Augusta Bannister a. \n                   Robert Slaughter,\n                  Jr. (1890-?)b. \n                   M. Bannister (1895-?)\n          D. \n                Samuel Garland Slaughter m. 1890 \n                Mary Wall Richardson (\"Maymee\") \n               a. \n                   Rosalie Slaughter (1892-?) m. \n                   William Dulaney Anderson b. \n                   Lillas (?) Richardson\n                  Slaughter (1895-?)c. \n                   Samuel Garland Slaughter, Jr. m. \n                   Rhoda Howard \n          E. \n                William Austin\n               Slaughter (1873-?)\n          F. \n                Blanche Rosalie Slaughter (1871-?)\n               m. 1905 \n                George Baxter Morton, Jr. (?\n               -1912)\n          G. \n                Edith Ridgeway Slaughter (1863-1921)\n               m. 1884 \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) (For children see under \n                Duke family )","Duke Family","Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         Sr. (1822-1898), son of \n          Richard Duke and \n          Maria Walker , married (1846) \n          Elizabeth Scott Eskridge (1820-1896),\n         daughter of \n          William Scott Eskridge and \n          Margaret Frances Brown . Their children\n         were:","A. \n                William Richard Duke (1848-1929) m.\n               (1894) \n                Edith May Colemann (1873-1943) \n               a. \n                   Elizabeth Eskridge\n                  Duke (1898-1899)b. \n                   Cammann Coleman Duke (1900-?) m.\n                  (1933) \n                   Mary Perrin\n                  White (1904-1984)c. \n                   William Richard Duke,\n                  Jr. (1902-?) m. (1933) \n                   Nancy Montgomery\n                  Wood (1902-?)\n          B. \n                Margaret Brown\n               Duke (1850-1851)\n          C. \n                Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n               Jr. (1853-1926) \n               m. (1884) (1) \n                   Edith Ridgeway\n                  Slaughter (1863-1921) \n                  a. \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Duke (1885-1966)b. \n                      Richard Thomas Walker Duke\n                     III (1887-1960) \n                     m. (1917) \n                         Myrtle Judson (?\n                        -1941)m. (1942) \n                         Cecile Grotta (1947) \n                         Florence\n                        Watts (\"Jeri\")c. \n                      John Flavel Slaughter\n                     Duke (1889-1933) m. \n                      Kathleen Timmons (?\n                     -1940)d. \n                      William Eskridge\n                     Duke (1893-1959) m. (1923) \n                      Lucy Marshall Lee (i) \n                         R.T.W. Duke\n                        IV (1924-1926)(ii) \n                         William Eskridge Duke,\n                        Jr. , (\"Bill\") (1927-) m. \n                         Frances Armistead\n                        Marston (iii) \n                         Lucy Marshall Duke (1931-)\n                        m. \n                         Gerald Kinne e. \n                      Helen Risdon\n                     Duke (1895-1984)f. \n                      Edwin Ellicott\n                     Duke (1899-1900)m. (1923) (2) \n                   Mary Richardson\n                  Slaughter (\"Maymee\")\n          D. \n                Maria Walker Duke (1855-1856)\n          E. \n                Mary Willoughby Duke (1857-1883) m.\n               (1882) Dr. \n                Charles Slaughter a. \n                   Mary Willoughby\n                  Slaughter (1883-?) m. (1905) \n                   Claude Marshall Lee (1882-?) \n                  (i) \n                      Martha Eskridge Lee\n                     Poston (1906-?)(ii) \n                      Mary Willoughby\n                     Lee (1908-1918)(iii) \n                      Lucy Ambler Lee\n                     Roberts (1910-)(iv) \n                      Claude Marshall Lee,\n                     Jr. (1911-)(v) \n                      Charlotte Slaughter Lee\n                     Lauck (1913-)(vi) \n                      Elizabeth Duke Lee\n                     Kopper (1919-)(vii) \n                      Mary Cary Lee (1926-)"],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eDuke Family Papers, Accession #9521-h, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottessville, Va.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"prefercite_tesim":["Duke Family Papers, Accession #9521-h, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottessville, Va."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThis addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eCharlottesville\u003c/geogname\u003efamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eLynchburg, Virginia\u003c/geogname\u003e. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLetters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e's preparation for World War I and\n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGermany\u003c/geogname\u003e's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003e; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eScotland\u003c/geogname\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eA third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003ewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eHolland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGermany\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eSwitzerland\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFrance\u003c/geogname\u003e, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eJack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003ePost Field, Sill, Oklahoma\u003c/geogname\u003e, and at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFt. Leavenworth, Kansas\u003c/geogname\u003e, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eAnnapolis, Maryland\u003c/geogname\u003eand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFrance\u003c/geogname\u003eas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eFt. Sheridan, Illinois\u003c/geogname\u003e. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003erun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eWashington, D.C.\u003c/geogname\u003e(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAnother interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eNaples\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eAthens\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMarseilles\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eGuam\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eYokosuka, Japan\u003c/geogname\u003e, 1949-1951.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEurope\u003c/geogname\u003e(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eChina\u003c/geogname\u003eduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMexico\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 25, 1928) and the \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMiddle East\u003c/geogname\u003e(November 4, 1935).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eMost of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eDuluth, Minnesota\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003ePhiladelphia\u003c/geogname\u003e(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eIreland\u003c/geogname\u003e, \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eScotland\u003c/geogname\u003e, and \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eEngland\u003c/geogname\u003e(July 24, August 1 \u0026amp; 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eSandwich\u003c/geogname\u003ein \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eCanada\u003c/geogname\u003eduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eBoston\u003c/geogname\u003eand \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eMontreal\u003c/geogname\u003e(August 1 \u0026amp; 11, 1851).\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOf note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eStaunton\u003c/geogname\u003eabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAlso of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eWisuh, China\u003c/geogname\u003e. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUral Mountains\u003c/geogname\u003enear \n         \u003cgeogname\u003e[Tagelove ?], Russia\u003c/geogname\u003e, during World War\n         I.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOther types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eSeries four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUnited States\u003c/geogname\u003e, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         \u003cgeogname\u003eUnited States\u003c/geogname\u003epostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content"],"scopecontent_tesim":["This addition to the \n          Duke family papers contains ca. 10,400 items\n         (38 Hollinger boxes, 12 linear shelf feet), 1764-1983, chiefly\n         personal and topical correspondence, business papers, and\n         legal papers of this prominent \n         Charlottesvillefamily, and the related \n          Slaughter family of \n         Lynchburg, Virginia. The collection also\n         has genealogical material, invitations (arranged by year),\n         literary manuscripts and poetry by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (1853-1926),\n         miscellaneous papers, printed material, school records and\n         papers, photographs, diaries, account books, notebooks and\n         other bound volumes, postcards and papers concerning a few\n         legal clients of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm.","The overwhelming bulk of the correspondence consists of\n         letters to and from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Edith Slaughter Duke (1863-1921), his\n         wife, and their children, \n          Mary Willoughby Duke (1885-1966); \n          Richard Thomas Walker Duke,\n         III (1887-1960); \n          John Flavel Slaughter Duke , \"Jack\"\n         (1889-1933); \n          William Eskridge Duke (1893-1959); and \n          Helen Risdon Duke (1895-1984).","The correspondence subseries devoted to letters written to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. contains three\n         different groups of material: 1) letters from his wife, \n          Edith Slaughter Duke ; 2) an\n         alphabetically arranged group of miscellaneous correspondents;\n         and 3) a group of individual correspondents, each with his own\n         folder.","The letters from Edith to \n          Tom Duke , 1882-1921, were written\n         whenever they were separated during their courtship, family\n         visits, vacations, and business trips. As could be expected,\n         most of these letters contain plans for furnishing their new\n         home, family news, and personal messages, all of which\n         chronicles the growth of the \n          Duke family .","The alphabetical miscellaneous correspondence file has\n         letters from college, fraternity and Masonic friends, business\n         associates, and other acquaintances and includes merchandise\n         orders, requests for speaking engagements, business matters,\n         literary concerns, letters of sympathy and personal news.","Letters of note in this group include the following\n         correspondents and topics: \n          S. A. Duke (Dec. 9, 1908) re\n         reconstruction and \"the great negro question;\" \n          A. Ranken Ford (Nov.23, 1914) re America's\n         Civil War, \n         England's preparation for World War I and\n         Germany's spying activities prior to the\n         war; \n          George Gilmer (Jul. 28, 1918) re the\n         important role of the \n          Y.M.C.A. in keeping up the morale of the\n         American soldier in \n         Europe; \n          T. H. Harrison (Apr. 21 and Jun. 25, 1916)\n         re Canadian involvement in World War I; \n          H. C. Marchant (Sep.[15], 1895) re vestry\n         records of \n          Christ Episcopal Church ; and \n          Jessie Uppleby (Apr. 18, Jul. 5, Aug. 19,\n         Nov. 22, 1917, and Aug. 29 [n.y.]) re World War I war news\n         from \n         Scotland.","The group of individual correspondents to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. include the following\n         people: \n          B. Johnson Barbour , \n          Mary Carey , \n          J. E. Creary , \n          John Singleton Diggs , \n          Elizabeth Eskridge Duke , \n          Maymee R. Slaughter Duke , \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , \n          William R. Duke , \n          Eugene Ellicott , fraternity brothers, \n          Kate Gunther , \n          Lizzie Gunther , and \n          Maude Gunther , \n          Paul Jones and \n          Peter Tudor Jones , \n          Luther Kountze , \n          Nancy Leary , \n          Thomas Nelson Page , \n          Thomas D. Ransom , \n          Schele De Vere , \n          John F. Slaughter, Sr. , \n          John F. Slaughter, Jr. , \n          Mary Harker Slaughter and \n          Mary Willoughby Duke Slaughter .","The letters to \n          Edith Duke include correspondence from \n          Myrtle Judson Duke , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          Susan Harker Risdon and miscellaneous\n         letters from friends and family, excluding her children.","A third subseries of correspondence consists of letters\n         from \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. and \n          Edith Duke to their children, Mr. and Mrs.\n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. and miscellaneous\n         correspondents. Of note in this group is a volume of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. 's letters from \n         Europewhich contains transcripts of his\n         letters home during his European tour of 1882. Duke describes\n         his voyage over on a ship \"Egypt,\" his companions and\n         acquaintances, his itinerary in \n         England, \n         Holland, \n         Germany, \n         Switzerland, and \n         France, and the many museums, historic\n         sites, and towns which he visited.","The fourth subseries contains letters to and from the\n         children of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , including\n         correspondence with their parents and with each other. The\n         sons of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , Walker, Jack, and\n         Eskridge, were all in the armed forces during World War I, and\n         their letters that decribe camp life and their war experiences\n         are in the correspondence to their parents, 1917-1919.","Jack \n          (John Flavel) Duke was an Air Service\n         officer stationed at \n         Post Field, Sill, Oklahoma, and at \n         Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, and his\n         correspondence, 1917-1919, and no date, describes his flying\n         experiences. Although \n          Eskridge Duke attended the \n          U.S. Naval Academy preparatory school at \n         Annapolis, Marylandand sailed as a\n         midshipman on the U.S.S. Illinois from 1911-1913, he served\n         during World War I in \n         Franceas an army officer with the \n          American Expeditionary Forces , from\n         September of 1918 until May of 1919.","R. T. Walker Duke 's letters to his\n         parents from 1908-1911 describe his experiences in \n          Montana as a cowboy, his interest in\n         homesteading, bronco riding, and his work as a printer. In\n         1917, Walker was assigned to the \n          5th Illinois Company , \n         Ft. Sheridan, Illinois. His letters\n         written during his service in \n         Europerun from October 1918 to March\n         1919. After the conclusion of the war, Walker served with the \n          Judge Advocate General Department in \n         Washington, D.C.(letters to his parents,\n         1920-1925).","Mary Duke 's letters to her parents,\n         1918-1926, and no date, describe her nursing experiences and\n         other charitable work in the \n          Archdeaconry of Southwest Virginia with\n         Mrs. \n          Hugh F. Binns at \n          Nora, Dickinson County, Virginia .","Another interesting group of letters in this subseries are\n         those of \n          William Eskridge Duke, Jr. to his family\n         and to his aunts, \n          Mary Duke and \n          Helen Duke . \n          Bill Duke served in the navy during the\n         Korean War and his letters describe the places which he\n         visited on his tours of duty, such as \n         Naples, \n         Athens, \n         Marseilles, \n         Guam, and \n         Yokosuka, Japan, 1949-1951.","The correspondence of the Duke brothers and sisters to each\n         other consists almost entirely of carbons or originals of\n         letters concerning the personal business transactions of the\n         family. It also reveals the financial difficulties of various\n         family members during the Depression years.","The \n          Slaughter family correspondence comprises\n         the fifth subseries of correspondence and contains letters to\n         and from members of \n          Edith Slaughter Duke 's family, including\n         her parents, \n          Mary Harker and \n          John Flavel Slaughter, Sr. , and her\n         brothers and sisters. The letters from Dr. \n          Blanche Rosalie Slaughter Morton , a\n         graduate of the \n          Women's Medical College of\n         Pennsylvania (1897) and practicing surgeon, form one\n         of the most interesting sections of this correspondence. She\n         describes her travels in \n         Europe(May 11, September 19, and 24,\n         1899); her concern for the \n          Lee family in \n         Chinaduring the struggle of the\n         Kuomintang with the warlords for political supremacy (March\n         29, 1927); her trip to \n         Mexico(July 25, 1928) and the \n         Middle East(November 4, 1935).","Most of the Slaughter correspondence concerns either\n         business matters or family news with a few exceptions. \n          Charles Slaughter, Sr. writes concerning a\n         strike and riot in \n         Duluth, Minnesota(July 7, 1889); \n          Charles M. Harker, Sr. describes the\n         meeting of the American Convention ( \n          Know-Nothing Party ) in \n         Philadelphia(June 10, 1855); Mary B[?]\n         R[?]'s letters, 1861-1862, provide a woman's view of the Civil\n         War; and \n          Samuel Slaughter describes his trip to \n         Ireland, \n         Scotland, and \n         England(July 24, August 1 \u0026 5, 1889).\n         Members of the \n          Garland family write concerning family news,\n         Dr. \n          [Erasmus] Darwin 's theory of the earth,\n         and the significance of fossils, and General Hull's activities\n         at \n         Sandwichin \n         Canadaduring the beginning of the War of\n         1812 (August 4, 1812); and a trip to \n         Bostonand \n         Montreal(August 1 \u0026 11, 1851).","Of note among the miscellaneous correspondence are two\n         letters from \n          John Singleton Mosby , one to \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. (September 27, 1915)\n         acknowledging Duke's letter of sympathy on the loss of Mosby's\n         son, and another to Captain \n          Sam Chapman (September 30, 1919)\n         concerning the manifesto of the \"Stonewall Jackson Camp\" at \n         Stauntonabout the role of Southern\n         soldiers in the Civil War.","Also of interest are the letters, 1895-1954, from \n          Mary Lee and \n          Claude Lee , an Episcopal medical\n         missionary family in \n         Wisuh, China. They ran a hospital and\n         dispensary from 1908 until ca. 1947. Although their letters\n         reveal various aspects of missionary life and personal family\n         news, they contain little of Chinese events. One letter by \n          Claude Lee (October 13, 1918) speaks of\n         the participation of the \n          8th Czecho-Slovak Regiment in a battle\n         against the Bolsheviks in the \n         Ural Mountainsnear \n         [Tagelove ?], Russia, during World War\n         I.","The last subseries of correspondence consists of topical\n         files concerning the American Legion and World War I; business\n         correspondence of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the publication of\n         the poetry of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; the rental of the\n         Duke's Park Street house; the will of \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. ; and the \n          St. Paul's Memorial Building Fund .","The other six non-correspondence series comprise about a\n         third of the collection and include: manuscripts and\n         miscellaneous papers, photographs, bound volumes and\n         notebooks, postcards, papers from the \n          Duke and Duke law firm and oversize\n         items.","The manuscripts and miscellaneous papers series contain the\n         personal business papers of the \n          Duke and related families, especially the \n          Slaughter family . There is also a sizeable\n         amount of family financial material in the Papers of the \n          Duke and Duke Law Firm at the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","Other types of material in this series include;\n         genealogical material, with a typescript about \n          Mary Harker Slaughter by her son, \n          William A. Slaughter ; invitations; legal\n         papers, including indentures, deeds, agreements, land surveys,\n         etc.; manuscripts by \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , both poetry and\n         prose, including \"Albemarle County and the City of\n         Charlottesville in War Time,\" \"Libraries and Their Contents,\"\n         \"Pearls and Pebbles,\" typescripts of portions of his\n         \"Recollections,\" (the whole five volumes of Duke's\n         \"Recollections\" of his life can be found in 9521-i); printed\n         material, including Masonic items and an undated political\n         pamphlet entitled \"Mahoneism Unveiled!\"; and Duke family\n         school records and papers.","The photographic series consists of both identified and\n         unidentified photographs. Identified photographs contain the\n         following categories: Judge \n          R. T. W. Duke, Jr. , \n          R. T. W. Duke, Sr. , men and women in the \n          Duke and related families, \n          Rosalie Slaughter Morton , miscellaneous\n         men and women, European scenes, places, photographs of a trip,\n          University of Virginia , and \n          Zeta Psi Brothers and \n          University of Virginia friends.\n         Unidentified photographs have been placed in the following\n         groups: animals, children, groups and families, men, places,\n         and women.","Series four, consisting of bound volumes and notebooks,\n         contains primarily diaries and notebooks of the immediate \n          Duke family members. The fifth series has \n         United States, foreign, and topical\n         postcards. The \n         United Statespostcards are separated\n         first by state and then by city or county; the foreign by\n         country only, and the topicals are grouped together.","The papers of the \n          Duke and Duke law firm contain incomplete\n         case files handled by the family law firm. Among these are \n          Maria Carter v. \n          Roy Brown ; \n          J. E. Costan v. \n          Downing L. Smith ; Dr. Funsten v. \n          W. Ed. Pickering ; \n          Insurance Company of Charlottesville v. \n          V. W. F. Carter, Jr. ; the \n          Kentucky Coal Company , \n          Pike County Coal Company , and \n          Ohio and Big Sandy Coal Company ; \n          Jefferson M. Levy Legal Papers; \n          Piedmont Gas and Oil Corporation v. \n          R. S. Duncan ; and Snyder v. \n          University of Virginia . Most of the law\n         firm's papers are located in the \n          University of Virginia Law Library .","The last series consists of oversize documents and\n         photographs."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSee the \n            \u003cextref type=\"simple\" href=\"https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/use-of-materials\"\u003e\n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.\u003c/extref\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Use Restrictions"],"userestrict_tesim":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"physloc_html_tesm":["\u003cphysloc\u003e\u003c/physloc\u003e\n      "],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":229,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:55:49.050Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00187_c03_c18"}},{"id":"viu_viu00663_c03_c158","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"Union Label - a collection of clippings\n about unions (especially printers) and their right to\n strike, 1909/1913","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00663_c03_c158#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_viu00663_c03_c158","ref_ssm":["viu_viu00663_c03_c158"],"id":"viu_viu00663_c03_c158","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00663","_root_":"viu_viu00663","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00663_c03","parent_ssi":"viu_viu00663_c03","parent_ssim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_viu00663","viu_viu00663_c03"],"title_filing_ssi":"Union Label - a collection of clippings\n                  about unions (especially printers) and their right to\n                  strike","title_ssm":["Union Label - a collection of clippings\n about unions (especially printers) and their right to\n strike"],"title_tesim":["Union Label - a collection of clippings\n about unions (especially printers) and their right to\n strike"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Union Label - a collection of clippings\n about unions (especially printers) and their right to\n strike, 1909/1913"],"text":["Union Label - a collection of clippings\n about unions (especially printers) and their right to\n strike, 1909/1913","Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers","box Box 198"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1909/1913"],"unitdate_other_ssim":["1909 -1913"],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":2081,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"containers_ssim":["box Box 198"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"date_range_isim":[1909,1910,1911,1912,1913],"_nest_path_":"/components#2/components#157","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:56:08.243Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_viu00663","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00663","_root_":"viu_viu00663","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00663","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/uva-sc/viu00663.xml","title_ssm":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"title_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"text":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","382","This collection\n         consists of approximately 500,000 items.","Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections.","After arrival at the University, the collection was placed\n         in the stack areas of the then division of Rare Books and\n         Manuscripts of the Library, and was shelved in close proximity\n         to another large collection received only a year before, that\n         of the Low Moor Iron Company. The two comprised the largest\n         group of material in the division at the time, a group that,\n         unfortunately, was rarely used by researchers as there were no\n         finding aids to the mass, and interested researchers were\n         intimidated by the problems of research in the papers.","The collections remained in the stacks until 1958 when\n         expansion space in the division's storage area was reduced to\n         a minimum by the successful collecting program of the\n         intervening years. A review of the collections and their use\n         showed that the Stone collection and the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were rarely consulted, and it was decided to move them\n         out of the division's quarters to provide storage space for\n         collections that were being used by researchers.","Space was located in the attic of a student dormitory, and\n         the division prepared the papers for long-term storage by\n         removing them from the old letter boxes in which they had\n         arrived. Each bundle of papers was placed between sheets of\n         gray, newspaper-storage cardboard sheets; the spine titles of\n         the old letter boxes were copied onto the cardboard sheets,\n         and the bundle was wrapped in brown paper, tied up with\n         string, and numbered in a coded sequence.","The collections remained in the attic of Lefevre House\n         until the fall of 1976 when, after the receipt of a grant from\n         the National Endowment for the Humanities for the processing\n         of the two collections, they were transported to the Alderman\n         Library building once more In the Library's receiving room,\n         the bundles were cleaned in the dust hood, untied and\n         unwrapped, and the contents transferred into gray, Hollinger\n         storage boxes before transfer into the storage areas of the\n         Manuscripts Department for processing. The coded numbers on\n         the bundles were recorded but proved to be of no use in\n         restoring order to the papers, badly out of sequence from\n         their many moves over the years. Nor did the spine titles and\n         dates from the original letters boxes prove to be of any\n         particular use in organizing the collection.","Once processing work was completed at the end of the summer\n         of 1978, the Stone Papers were transferred back to the\n         dormitory attic as space in the Alderman Library building\n         remained short, and it was felt that adequate service on the\n         Stone Papers could be maintained from the attic now that a\n         guide to the papers had been prepared. (N.B. The Stone papers\n         were removed from the dormitory attic and transferred to the\n         University Library's high-density remote storage facility\n         following its opening in the mid-1990s.)","The word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the lists of box\n         contents that follow will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.","As previously noted, the Stone papers were subjected to a\n         number of moves before processing began, and, unfortunately,\n         there seems to have been little organization of the papers in\n         Mr. Stone's files in his Roanoke office. Presumably, he and\n         his staff could locate material that was needed from the\n         files, but at the time that processing began in the fall of\n         1976, no discernible scheme of organization could be\n         determined.","The first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to the\n         dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of useful\n         organization. Next, the spine titles of the original letter\n         boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the gray\n         cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory attic), but\n         they, too, proved useless.","These steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors on\n         the collection, the new student processors were instructed to\n         begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents of the\n         collection. During this inventory, old folders were replaced\n         with acid-free ones, and the original folder headings were\n         copied onto the new ones. Some removal of papers clips was\n         accomplished, and the materials were reviewed and notes were\n         taken for the guide.","The processors found that Mr. Stone's papers were comprised\n         of three series. One was devoted to his personal affairs, and\n         contained material about his diverse business interests\n         outside his two major ones, and about his civic and\n         professional interests, as well as papers from his private\n         life. The second series contained the papers from his major\n         business and \"first love\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company of Roanoke; and the third series included a wealth of\n         material about the Borderland Coal Company, an enterprise that\n         Mr. Stone served for twenty-seven years, first as president\n         and later, as chairman of the board.","For a long time, we considered separating the three series\n         of papers, and the processors evolved a good system of colored\n         slips clipped to the boxes to identify material from each\n         series contained in a box. However, as they neared the end of\n         their inventory, the processors became convinced, and argued\n         successfully that the series should not be separated.\n         Basically, all these papers are Mr. Stone's private papers as\n         he was the major stockholder in the Stone Printing Company and\n         it was very much a personal operation. There are\n         interrelationships between material that was found standing in\n         different folders in the same box, and the processors\n         correctly feared that drastic reorganization would destroy\n         those relationships. Thus, we decided to accept their\n         argument, and the box contents were allowed to remain as we\n         found them.","A certain amount of movement of boxes within the collection\n         probably would ease use of it. But what processing was\n         accomplished on this project took far longer than had been\n         anticipated, and there was no time in the late spring of 1978,\n         when the processors had to complete their work with the\n         project, to undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they\n         stand in the order in which we found them at the beginning of\n         the project.","As has been stated above, the three series of papers in\n         this collection (Stone Personal; Borderland Coal Co.; and\n         Stone Printing and Mfg. Co.) have not been physically\n         separated and are scattered throughout the collection.\n         However, in the container listing which follows the three\n         series have been separated. Therefore, the listing for the\n         Edward L. Stone Personal Papers series begins with Box 11 of\n         the collection because that is the first box in which Stone's\n         personal papers can be found. (Boxes 1-10 appear in the\n         listing for the Borderland Coal Co. series.) This also means\n         that if a box contains material from more than one series it\n         will have more than one entry in the listing, so that to find\n         a complete listing of a particular box a researcher might need\n         to look at the listing for each of the three series. In\n         addition, some of the box entries in the listing are slightly\n         out of order, so that if a box appears to have no entry or\n         only a partial entry, in a particular series the entry is\n         sometimes picked up on the next page of the listing.","Listings of oversize material are located at the end of the\n         listing for each series.","of Edward L. StoneEdward Lee Stone was born on September 15, 1864, in\n         Liberty (now Bedford) Virginia, the son of John Harmon Stone\n         and Mary Witt Stone. He was reared in very modest\n         circumstances, and received no more than an elementary school\n         education, yet he became one of the wealthiest and most\n         prominent citizens in the state of Virginia.","Edward Stone's career in the printing business is typical\n         of the fabled American dream. At ten years of age, having\n         recently lost his father, Stone was in the boys' playground of\n         his school. J. R. Guy, the editor of the Bedford Sentinel\n         newspaper, came to the playground looking for William Fellers,\n         Stone's cousin. When Stone asked Mr. Guy what he wanted with\n         William, Guy replied \"I want him to carry the papers. Stone\n         said, \"I'll carry 'em' for you.\" After being a delivery boy\n         for the Sentinel, Stone learned to set type and worked\n         evenings after school for five cents an evening; twenty-five\n         cents on Saturday. Less than a year later, economics\n         necessitated that he quit school to pursue his job full time.\n         Stone learned his lessons well, and showed enthusiasm in every\n         phase of his work. Young Stone worked alongside a window, and\n         enjoyed nothing better than to jump out into the street and\n         scrap with some passing youngster, returning to his duties\n         after the fun was over.","Stone was given more and more duties which he performed to\n         this employer's total satisfaction. At the age of sixteen, for\n         some now-inexplicable reason, Stone left the newspaper\n         business to work for a mercantile establishment, He soon grew\n         bored, however, and returned to printer's ink. This time he\n         worked for the Democrat, a weekly newspaper in Buchanan,\n         Virginia, then a thriving town at the intersection of the\n         James River and the Kanawha Canal.","Once, at the age of sixteen, Stone was entrusted with\n         getting out an entire edition of the paper by himself. The\n         editor was in court and many workmen were out sick. Stone and\n         an assistant set type at breakneck speed beginning at 7:15\n         A.M. and had the entire seven-column paper completed by noon\n         --an amazing feat. Stone was out playing ball by 2 P.M. and\n         earned a $5.00 bonus from his boss, editor William J. Boyd. In\n         1882, Boyd informed Stone that he was going to open a printing\n         office in Roanoke, Virginia, then a small town. Boyd wanted\n         Stone to be manager, and on July 20th, 1882, both men arrived\n         in Roanoke. A place could not be found for the new enterprise\n         however, and both returned to Buchanan. Stone became\n         disillusioned with the small scope of opportunities Buchanan\n         provided, and, with an ambition to \"become somebody\" in the\n         printing business, set out for Lynchburg. Landing in Lynchburg\n         in January 1883 he applied for work on the News and, after a\n         few days, secured a position as compositor. Here he remained\n         until March, achieving considerable reputation as a fast\n         compositor, yet not satisfied. Stone really longed for a\n         position in the printing business. John P. Bell offered Stone\n         a minor position in a branch office he had planned to open in\n         Roanoke. The position was, in most respects, inferior to the\n         one he had already held, but Stone gladly took it. He worked\n         hard, and showed superior business ability which impressed Mr.\n         Bell so much that when the manager of the business died in\n         1885 his position was offered to Stone. The position was not\n         offered without some misgivings because of Stone's youth (he\n         was only twenty-one) and his lack of business experience.\n         Stone, however, did such a good job as manager that Bell\n         realized that he had made the right choice. Stone eventually\n         gained control of the business and became president of the\n         company.","His position was secure enough that in 1890, he married\n         Miss Minnie Fishburn, daughter of J. A. Fishburn, a prominent\n         business man of Roanoke. The couple had one child, Mary\n         Katherine Stone.","Edward Stone's printing business grew in size and wealth.\n         By 1920 it was acknowledged by many to be the best-equipped\n         printing corporation in the south, and one of the largest as\n         well. He had many other business interests. He was president\n         of the Borderland Coal Corporation, president of the Virginia\n         Bridge and Iron Company, vice president and later president of\n         the Walker Foundry and Machine Company, chairman of the First\n         National Exchange Bank, and president of his primary business\n         and \"first love,\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company.","In March 1896 Stone was presented with a petition signed by\n         fourteen Roanoke business men requesting that he run for\n         mayor. Stone was very tempted, but a law stating that no one\n         in Roanoke public office would be permitted to do business\n         with the city stopped him. Stone felt that not being able to\n         do business with the city would be unfair to his stockholders.\n         Stone, a civic-minded individual, was chairman of the Roanoke\n         Community Fund in 1924, and of the City Planning and Zoning\n         Commission. He was also chairman of the war bond committee\n         during the First World War, and belonged to many societies and\n         organizations, including the American Institute of Graphic\n         Arts, the Florida State Historical Society, the Shenandoah\n         Club of Roanoke, the Country Club of Roanoke, the Roanoke Gun\n         Club, the Roanoke German Club, the Virginia Historical Society\n         (life member), the Better Printing Committee of the United\n         Typothetae of America, the Roanoke Rotary Club, the\n         International Benjamin Franklin Society of New York, and the\n         board of trustees of the Committee to Assist the Blind.","Edward Stone was also an extremely charitable man. He gave\n         large sums of money to the Roanoke Hospital and the Roanoke\n         Relief Fund, helped endow Roanoke College, gave heavily to the\n         Boy Scouts and the War Relief Clearing House, and donated\n         money to the Coal Miner's Relief Fund--even though it was\n         those very coal miners who were striking in Stone's coal\n         mines. He believed, however, that the miners' children should\n         not have to suffer for their parents' stand. The Stones also\n         gave money to support French children who had been left\n         fatherless as a result of the war. Stone, a Presbyterian,\n         donated $100.00 to the Jewish Relief Fund in 1917 to aid the\n         starving Jews in Russia displaced by the war, and also sent\n         funds to the Tuskeegee Institute.","Edward Stone's principal hobby was book collecting, and his\n         library was appraised at $50,000.00 in 1939. Among his\n         treasured pieces was a page from the original Gutenberg Bible.\n         Stone's library was considered to be the largest and\n         best-equipped privately-owned library in the state of\n         Virginia.","Stone's income fluctuated through the years. In 1917 and\n         1918, partly through stock sales, Stone declared an income of\n         $129,383.39 and $91,483.00 respectively, but 1926 was\n         considered an average year, and he declared an income of\n         $57,500.00.","Although Stone was a humanitarian and philanthropist, he\n         believed in keeping total control of his business and watched\n         his employees closely. He did not strongly oppose unionization\n         in his printing shop, but fully opposed unionization in his\n         coal mines, even using scabs to break strikes.","Stone suffered financial reversals during the Great\n         Depression but he reorganized his holdings to prevent a great\n         loss, and he weathered the Depression better than most\n         businessmen. His health had begun to fail by 1929, and by 1934\n         he was virtually bedridden. Finally, after a protracted\n         illness, Edward L. Stone died on June 3, 1938, at the age of\n         seventy-four.","A History of the Borderland Coal\n         CompanyThe Borderland Coal Company derived its name from its\n         dual location in Mingo County, West Virginia, and Pike County,\n         Kentucky, an area bordered by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy\n         River. The mines proper were located in Kentucky, and the coal\n         washers and other processing equipment were located in West\n         Virginia. The company operated from 1903 to 1934. While the\n         Borderland Coal Company was incorporated in 1903, the first\n         batch of coal was not shipped until September 1, 1904. In that\n         year J. S. Tipton, formerly the majority stockholder, resigned\n         his post as general manager of Borderland Coal and sold most\n         of his stock to Edward L. Stone. At that time Stone was\n         president of the Young Men's Investment Club which owned a\n         large number of shares in the Borderland Coal Company, and\n         thus, Stone controlled the club's activities.","The Borderland Coal Company initially owned approximately\n         1,000 acres of coal land. The company mined bituminous or soft\n         coal, and sold slack coal, used by railroads and industrial\n         concerns, egg coal, used in private furnaces, and nut coal,\n         the highest quality of bituminous coal, used in the kitchens\n         of private homes.","The Borderland Coal Company grew through the early 1900's.\n         In 1905, a second plant was opened called simply \"Operation\n         #2.\" The company declared its first stock dividend in November\n         1907, and began the construction of an electric plant,\n         cableway, conveyor, and tipple at a cost of $27,950.00. In\n         1908 a new coal washer was installed. By late 1914 the\n         Borderland Company held 3,000 acres of coal lands containing\n         an estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal. The profits of the\n         Borderland Coal Company increased from $1,250.00 in 1904 to\n         $11,243.77 in 1905, to $49,977.21 in 1908, and to $110,532.68\n         in 1910.","The amount of coal mined increased from 246 railroad\n         carloads in 1904 to 3,781 railroad carloads in 1910, and\n         expansion continued until the outbreak of World War I. The\n         coal paid a regular annual dividend averaging 15-30%. Prior to\n         1911, the Leckie Coal Company of Cleveland, Ohio, was the\n         exclusive agency for the sale of Borderland Coal. In that\n         year, however, the Borderland Coal Sales Company was formed,\n         with officers of the Borderland Coal Company doubling as\n         officials of the new company.","The town of Borderland, West Virginia, was a company town,\n         with company-owned homes, stores, school, and a church. The\n         rents in the company homes appear to have been within the\n         miners' incomes. The prices in the company stores, however,\n         were exorbitant. In fact, profits for the company store were\n         the second biggest money maker for the company in 1911,\n         totaling $11,811.78. The largest profit maker was coal, which\n         netted $91,741.07, while the sale of powder was ranked third,\n         totaling $3,165.86.","World War I created a great demand and a high prices for\n         coal, and the Borderland Coal Company prospered despite\n         difficulty finding railroad cars to transport its produce. In\n         1917, the company paid a record 60% dividend. On January 1,\n         1918, the company re-chartered itself in Virginia, and\n         patented the trademark and the name of the Borderland Coal\n         Company. The new capital stock was valued at nearly\n         $800,000.00. In November 1918 construction began on a new\n         tipple at a cost of $116,000.00. After the First World War,\n         the Borderland Coal Company experienced a decrease in both the\n         demand and the price of coal. The problem of labor and\n         unionization, however, ultimately caused the company's\n         demise.","Borderland Coal Company officials had been concerned over\n         the growth of coal mine unionization long before any major\n         trouble began. As early as 1915, L. E. Armentrout, the\n         corporation's Vice President and General Manager began using\n         \"secret service men\" to infiltrate the ranks of the miners and\n         report on any union activity. It is not known whether these\n         agents were U.S. government agents or private investigators,\n         but the latter is presumed. One of them reported on March 10,\n         1915:","I spent the entire day Monday with Emmett and Ed McKee,\n            Gus Cantrell, and Henry McKnight, all white Americans. We\n            played cards in an empty house on the Kentucky side. We had\n            a nice fire and everything was very comfortable. We would\n            play cards until we got tired, then we would stop\n            everything and talk unionism. Gus Cantrell said that he had\n            been talking to the boys for the last year, trying to get\n            them to organize a local of the U.M.W. of A. He said that\n            there was plenty of good, solid union men and that there\n            were also a lot of rotten scabs here. That he got into a\n            conversation with George McCormick, a white man, and\n            McCormick told him that he didn't believe in the union and\n            that he didn't want anything to do with the U.M.W. of A. .\n            . . I told Cantrell that I would be willing to help\n            organize the local. He said, \"Well, the work is picking up\n            now and we will wait until the boys get a good pay day,\n            then we will put this thing through.\"","Borderland Coal Company successfully resisted unionization\n         in the years before World War I. Wartime regulations prevented\n         strikes and hindered unionization, but after the war many\n         miners felt that it was time to air their grievances. Miners\n         disagreed over specific demands, but most felt that grave\n         inequalities existed in the rates for day workers established\n         by the Bituminous Coal Commission. The miners requested that a\n         conference be held but this request was turned down by the\n         Commission. Dissatisfaction became more pronounced, and during\n         the middle of July 1920 the miners in some of the subdistricts\n         walked out in an unauthorized strike. Shutdowns spread to\n         Indiana and Illinois. President Woodrow Wilson intervened and\n         told the miners that if they returned to work a grievance\n         committee would be formed. The miners returned to work August\n         10, 1920, and the committee was set up. Management and labor\n         agreed on a wage increase and all was quiet for a while.","West Virginia was in a unique position in that most of the\n         mines in that state were non-union. The Interstate Commerce\n         Commission fixed freight rates with a \"differential\" low\n         enough that West Virginia coal would not be eliminated by\n         production from other fields closer to their market. When the\n         market for coal was good, the differential also allowed the\n         union coal fields of Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois to pay\n         the union scale of wages and still sell their coal in\n         competition with the product of non-union fields, such as\n         those in West Virginia. When the demand for coal was low and\n         prices receded, however, the differential no longer aided the\n         union fields and they began to experience an adverse effect.\n         These conditions appeared after the First World War, and as a\n         result operators of unionized mines demanded the unionization\n         of the Wast Virginia coal fields. Thus the U.M.W. put pressure\n         on all non-union fields, including those of the Borderland\n         Coal Company. Borderland Coal Company had been fairly quiet\n         about unionization up to this time. On May 5, 1920, however,\n         L. E. Armentrout had issued the following notice:","TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE BORDERLAND\n            COAL COMPANY \n            Considerable efforts are being made to organize this\n            field and certain advantages are being held out to some men\n            showing the advisability of belonging to the Union. \n            This is a free country and this company is not going\n            to dictate to its employees whether they shall or shall not\n            join the Union, but for your information and for the\n            information of your friends, we wish to state positively\n            that no Union man will be employed by this company, and if\n            you find that it is to your interest to join the Union, we\n            would suggest that you arrange to move out and call at the\n            office and we will be glad to settle with you. This will\n            save you as well as the company further trouble, but we\n            sincerely hope that the pleasant relations between the\n            Company and the men will continue, and that each and every\n            one of you will continue in our employ. \n            Yours very truly, \n            L. E. Armentrout, \n            Manager","By late May, 1920 the situation had become acute.\n         Armentrout wrote to James P. Woods, president of the\n         Borderland Coal Company:","The organizers have just about put us out of business at\n            both plants . . . We have a good many men who have not\n            joined the Union, but these agitators are intimidating them\n            and have them so scared they won't attempt to try to work.\n            I will have a conference with the West Virginia attorneys\n            today to see if I cannot get a temporary injunction, or\n            probably prosecution for these intimidators. \n            We have three Deputy Sheriffs in Kentucky and expect\n            two more in today. We have both plants pretty well policed\n            at night, but still some of the intimidators slip through\n            the mines and get to some of the men. . . \n            Now that the primary is over, we believe that\n            Unionism will die out. . . . In fact, no Union cards have\n            been issued and for the past two or three days they have\n            not been able to locate the man who has been giving them\n            orders on the stores. Some of them (the fired Union Men)\n            have already remarked that they could not support their\n            families on $7.00 to $8.00 a week, and they hated to go to\n            bed at night when their children were crying for something\n            to eat.","Unionism, however, did not die out. Union \"agitators\" saw\n         to that no coal could be mined at the Borderland Company's\n         coal fields. In a letter to Stone dated July 6, 1920,\n         Armentrout stated that he was able to get \"very little action\n         from the Governor of West Virginia. . .I just finished talking\n         to Governor Morrow's office in Frankfort, Kentucky, and the\n         home guards will likely entrain today. They will likely have\n         machine guns so if that they get in according to promise, we\n         think that conditions will improve very rapidly.\"","The Borderland Coal Company kept its promise and\n         dispossessed hundreds of its employees. Fired from their jobs\n         and ousted from their homes, they were forced to live in\n         tents. In a union pamphlet entitled \"Borderland and Bullets\"\n         these men told of the horrible indignities forced on company\n         employees who joined the union. The purpose of the pamphlet\n         was to oppose the re-election of Colonel James P. Woods,\n         president of the Borderland Coal Company, to the U. S. House\n         of Representatives. Woods ran for re-election in the sixth\n         Virginia district claiming that he had been always fair to the\n         working man, and he won.","The situation at Borderland soon deteriorated into\n         violence. A pamphlet dated \"winter, 1920\" and entitled \n         Hell with the Lid Off in Mingo\n         County, West Virginia,gives an account of drunken\n         company guards wounding a number of workers by firing into\n         their tents. On May 12, 1920, Edward Stone, chairman of the\n         board of the Borderland Coal Company, had examined an\n         advertisement for the Thompson sub-machine gun but had decided\n         that \"the gun is not sufficient for our needs at the mine.\" On\n         May 16 Governor John J. Cornwell of West Virginia sent a\n         telegram to the War Department in Washington requesting that\n         Federal troops be sent to the Tug River District, where\n         Borderland Coal Company was located. There had been fighting\n         in the Tug River District for nearly four days. Secretary of\n         War John Weeks, basing his decision on reports from one of his\n         staff officers who had visited the area, decided that federal\n         troops were not needed. Four days later Governor Cornwell\n         declared martial law in West Virginia. Militiamen from both\n         Kentucky and West Virginia were involved in the fighting.","In the summer of 1921 the U. M. W. began its famous \"summer\n         march\" which precipitated guerilla warfare between the\n         pro-union and anti-union forces. On June 29, Governor Cornwell\n         ordered the citizens of West Virginia to take up arms and\n         defend themselves against the pro-unionists. The papers of the\n         Borderland Coal Company include lists of casualties written on\n         scrap paper, such as \"Stone Mountain, 5 Baldwin men and 4\n         citizens killed (one the mayor), 2 Feltz Bros. killed, 2\n         military companies there, 2 on the way.\" In April 1922 the\n         coal miners' grievances came to a head and they struck. They\n         demanded a continuation of the system of bargaining and\n         contract, including the \"checkoff,\" which is a list devised to\n         check on payment of union dues. In addition to demanding\n         stable wage rates, the miners demanded a six-hour day and a\n         five-day week. These increased hours would mean steady\n         employment, one of the miners' main goals.","The strike apparently took some pressure off the Borderland\n         Coal Company because after 1922 there is little or nothing in\n         the collection regarding unionization. Company officials had\n         managed to avoid unionization of their mines but had caused\n         the company much damage in the process. Bitter feelings\n         prevailed after the strike. A letter from L. E. Armentrout to\n         the Borderland Coal Company dated 1923 states:","Gentlemen, \n            My attention has just been called to the enclosed\n            blotter bearing the union label. It has been the policy of\n            this company for several years, in fact, ever since we have\n            been in business, not to recognize any Union whatever. We\n            spent, or lost, something like $300,000.00 fighting the\n            United Mine Workers here in 1920 and 1921, and also have\n            some injunctions against them. \n            For your information, please do not place any more\n            printing with any Union shop, and if you have any more of\n            these blotters, tear them up or dispose of them otherwise\n            as it is inconsistent with our policy, and we positively\n            will not stand for it.","While much of the collection regards labor struggles, there\n         is little material regarding immigrant labor although 40% of\n         the workers were immigrants. West Virginia was a sparsely\n         populated state at this time, and immigrants were needed to\n         supplement the labor in their mines. The first constitution of\n         the state provided for the appointment of an immigration\n         officer whose duties were to advertise the attractions of West\n         Virginia throughout Europe and make arrangements with\n         industries to supply transportation for foreign workmen. Of\n         the 80,877 workers employed in the West Virginia coal mines in\n         1915, 49,753 were American-born (37,918 white and 11,835\n         black) and 31,124 were foreign-born. Italians made up the\n         largest percentage of the immigrant labor force, about one\n         third of all foreigners employed in the mines while Hungarians\n         comprised the second-most prevalent nationality, approximately\n         one-sixth of the foreign born total.","The Borderland Coal Company never fully recovered from the\n         trouble that paralyzed its mines in 1920. The 1920's were a\n         very depressed period for the mining industry in general and\n         the depression of 1929 brought prices to an all time low. Coal\n         production fell precipitously from 1927-1933 although there\n         seemed to be a slight upturn that year. In 1927, L. E.\n         Armentrout resigned from the company and a year later the\n         Borderland Coal Sales Company was dissolved due to lack of\n         business. The Norfolk and Chesapeake Coal Company became\n         exclusive agents for the sale of Borderland coal. At a meeting\n         of the Borderland Coal Company's board of directors in 1929,\n         it was stated that since the market for coal was so poor, it\n         hardly paid to keep the mines going. The Borderland Coal\n         Company mines were only worked four days during the entire\n         month of May 1932. In a letter from Edward L. Stone to a\n         Borderland Coal Company creditor, Stone wrote that as the\n         Borderland Coal Company did not have the money to pay its\n         debts, all creditors would have to wait for their money, and\n         that he hoped that he could avoid declaring the Borderland\n         Coal Company bankrupt. In 1934 Stone received a letter from a\n         stockholder consoling him for having to \"lose Borderland\n         Coal.\" Apparently the company was then out of business.","The demise of the Borderland Coal Company was the result of\n         broad national trends; the product of their mines was of high\n         quality, and in good supply. The problem of labor and\n         unionization paralyzed the Borderland Coal Company. Lack of\n         production in the mines meant that the Borderland Coal Company\n         could not pay dividends which affected their stockholders. The\n         bad mining conditions, a lack of demand for coal and low\n         market prices made it impossible for the Borderland Coal\n         Company to recover. The return of the coal-rich region of\n         Alsace-Lorraine to France meant that our allies no longer\n         needed American coal. Domestic demand increased, but it did\n         not compensate for decreased industrial use. The switch to\n         alternative forms of energy such as oil, also damaged the coal\n         industry. Although prosperity returned to the rest of the\n         country, the coal industry never totally recovered, and the\n         Borderland Coal Company was one of the victims.","Officers of the Borderland Coal Company: Edward Lee Stone\n         --President ca. 1907-1919, Chairman of the Board 1919-ca.\n         1934; James P. Woods (attorney at law --U. S. Representative,\n         6th Virginia District) --Vice President ca. 1905-1922,\n         President 1922-1932; L. E. Armentrout --Manager ca. 1905-1915,\n         Vice President and Manager ca. 1915-1927; Ernest B. Fishburn\n         --Secretary-Treasurer ca. 1905-1930","Officers of the Borderland Coal Sales Company: L. E.\n         Armentrout --President; Edward Lee Stone --Vice President;\n         James P. Woods --second Vice President; R. N. Osborne,\n         Jr.--Secretary (discharged in 1924); W. W.\n         Austin--Secretary.","A History of the Stone Printing and\n         Manufacturing CompanyThe Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia, was established in 1883 as the Bell Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company. John P. Bell of Lynchburg served as\n         president, and Samuel J. Fields of Abington, Virginia, served\n         as manager. Edward L. Stone, the eventual chairman of the\n         board, was then employed as a journeyman printer and pressman.\n         In 1885, Stone succeeded Fields as the company's manager, and\n         his brother, Albert A. Stone, joined the business.","At this time the company occupied a small site on Commerce\n         Street in Roanoke, an area about twenty by twenty-five feet.\n         In 1889 the plant was seriously damaged by fire, and within a\n         few months, the company moved to larger quarters on the second\n         and third floors of the Gale Building on Jefferson Street.\n         Shortly thereafter, the controlling interest was purchased by\n         Edward L. Stone, with the remainder of the stock being\n         purchased by J. B. Fishburn and Albert A. Stone.","In 1892, the name of the company was changed to the Stone\n         Printing and Manufacturing Company, and the company occupied a\n         new, three-story building at 116 North Jefferson Street. In\n         1896, a duplicate building was added on the north side; in a\n         few years another addition was placed at the rear. The company\n         built another addition in 1902 but five years later the old\n         structure was torn down and a new two-stories building, 210 x\n         110 feet, was completed. The new structure gave the Stone\n         Printing Company 50,000 square feet of space, which is about\n         100 times the floor space originally occupied on Commerce\n         Street. The company today occupies the same site on Jefferson\n         Street.","In 1883 the capital stock of the company was $5,000.00, and\n         in 1900, it was increased to $50,000.00. In 1910 the capital\n         stock had grown to $350,000.00. All of the stock increases\n         were taken, with one exception, by the original stockholders.\n         Sales grew from $84,371.00 in 1900 to $179,433.78 in 1905, and\n         from $253,781.15 in 1909 to a high of $608,174.36 in 1920.","Stone had considered selling his printing company to a\n         British syndicate in 1912. He felt, however, that business was\n         good and getting better and eventually decided to retain\n         control. By 1920 the Stone Printing Company had customers in\n         half the states in the union and in some foreign countries.\n         Between 1920 and 1929, however, sales showed a steady decline.\n         In 1929 they fell to $399,701.43 and declined throughout the\n         depression.","The Stone Printing Company's most important business came\n         from railroads as the company printed tariff and rate\n         schedules as well as tickets. Since the railroad rates changed\n         rapidly during the early 1900's, railroad printing was very\n         lucrative. The principal railroad customer and in fact, the\n         largest customer, of the Stone Printing Company was the\n         Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1910 the Norfolk and Western\n         Railroad accounted for $85,652.60 in sales. Combined with the\n         sales to other railroads in 1910, the total of railroad sales\n         was approximately $193,000.00 of a total of $339,678.92 --well\n         over half of the total sales of the Stone Printing\n         Company.","Commercial printing comprised the second largest source of\n         the Stone Printing Company's business, accounting for\n         $135,110.32 of a total $608,174.36 in 1920. The fourth largest\n         amount of business, after the Norfolk and Western Railway,\n         other railroads, and commercial printing, was school and\n         college printing. The Stone Printing Company printed the\n         yearbooks for the University of Virginia, the Georgia\n         Institute of Technology, the University of Mississippi,\n         Randolph-Macon College, Hollins College, Virginia Polytechnic\n         Institute, and others.","The profit margin in printing often was small, and thus\n         costs had to be carefully controlled. Edward L. Stone was a\n         commissioner of the American Printers Cost Commission which\n         kept a close watch on printing costs and tried to keep them\n         down. Another serious problem that bothered Stone Printing\n         Company was unionization. As most Roanoke printing shops,\n         Stone Printing Company was an open shop where either union or\n         non-union people could be employed. The company's officers did\n         not penalize or prevent workers from joining the union. The\n         International Typographical Union, however, put pressure on\n         Edward Stone to turn his establishment into a closed shop,\n         that is, a shop that would hire only union members, pay union\n         wages, and abide by union rules. Paying union wages did not\n         trouble Stone because he already paid more than the union\n         scale in most cases. For example, in 1905 when the union scale\n         was $13.50 per week, Stone pointed out that while two of his\n         employees received less and one received the union wage, over\n         forty workers received between $15.00 and $25.00 per week.\n         Stone felt it folly to pay all workers the same because, he\n         said, \"some are so much better than others.\"","Edward Stone's paternalistic attitude toward his employees\n         is reflected in a collection of letters exchanged with his\n         workers. Forced to fire an employee who lied about being able\n         to work on a printing press, Stone lent him the money to go to\n         printing school, and re-hired him when he had learned the\n         trade. Another worker left the company without notice, heading\n         home to Lexington, Virginia. When the employee needed money to\n         return to Roanoke, Stone lent it to him with the understanding\n         that the employee would never again leave without asking\n         Stone's permission. Another employee left Stone without notice\n         to work for another printing firm, but when the employee\n         wanted his old job back, Stone gave it to him. Stone\n         frequently lent money to his employees, and did not press them\n         for repayment.","Many of the union's rules, however bothered Stone. Among\n         the ones he objected to were (1) in all cases when it became\n         necessary to reduce the working force of an office, the last\n         person hired should be the first dropped; (2) in machine\n         composition, all work must be time work and no piece work\n         should be allowed; (3) no member of the International\n         Typographical Union should engage in a speed contest either by\n         hand composition or on machines, and violation of this rule\n         was to be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00, or by\n         suspension; (4) an eight hour day (Stone Printing had a 9 to\n         9-1/2 hour day); and (5) no one holding active membership in a\n         local union should sign any individual or private contract\n         with any employer, agreeing to work for any stated time,\n         length, or conditions as the union alone was to have the power\n         to contract for conditions, wages, and hours. This fifth\n         stipulation bothered Stone the most for he firmly believed\n         that an employee should perform whatever duty Stone demanded\n         of him.","On November 20, 1907, there was a union strike in Roanoke.\n         The union men employed by the Stone Printing Company walked\n         out, and the union formed a picket line in front of the Stone\n         Printing Company. Stone wrote to Joel Cuthin, Mayor of\n         Roanoke: \"We have never been opposed to the union, but we have\n         objected to having them run our business, unless they acquired\n         it by ownership.\" The union put pressure on the Stone Printing\n         Company. A memo to Edward Stone from Albert Stone dated 1915\n         told of some Stone Printing Company material being returned by\n         certain Roanoke merchants because they did not bear the union\n         label. The amount of material returned, however, was very\n         small. The union pressure placed on Stone was generally\n         peaceful and there was no violence or destruction. After the\n         unsuccessful strike, Stone took back all of his union men.","After 1920 the company's sales and profits declined. In\n         1927, Albert Stone, who had assumed the presidency of the\n         company, commissioned Ernst and Ernst, financial analysts, to\n         examine the operation of Stone Printing and make\n         recommendations for improving business. The analysts found\n         Stone Printing to be an innovative company which sought and\n         found new markets such as school and college printing and the\n         printing of calendars, and which had sound leadership. Ernst\n         and Ernst felt that it was a change in economic conditions,\n         not the company itself, that caused the company's problems.\n         Competition had changed and grown in intensity by 1920, making\n         the ability to sell most important. The analysts recommended\n         the creation of a sales department coupled with more\n         aggressive selling techniques.","Later, Albert Stone, Jr., Edward Stone's nephew, claimed\n         that it was the reluctance of the Stone Printing Company to\n         cut prices during the depression of 1919-1922 that caused the\n         company's problems. He claimed that by the time the company\n         did cut its prices, Stone Printing had lost many of its most\n         valued customers, and suggested a closer watch of costs\n         coupled with an expansion of the calendar line. Although these\n         suggestions were followed, business did not improve.","When the Great Depression hit in 1929, business worsened.\n         Loyal customers and a solid financial base kept the Stone\n         Printing Company from bankruptcy. Edward Stone's health was\n         failing by 1929, and most of the company's affairs were passed\n         on to his brother Albert. In a letter from Edward Stone to the\n         board of directors in 1930, he wrote: \n         the years operations to date, with vastly improved\n            selling efforts, has only brought us the same volume of\n            business that we had last year but the increased\n            organization expense, incident to this extra selling\n            effort, and the extraordinary competition in the matter of\n            price, has prevented us from obtaining prices that we\n            should really obtain for our products.Edward Stone recommended a reduction in salaries\n         across the board from the president on down, and layoffs of\n         certain personnel.","When Franklin D. Roosevelt first initiated his New Deal\n         program in 1933, Edward Stone was apprehensive. In a letter\n         dated July 26, 1933, he wrote: \n         We would like the best in the world to go along with the\n            National Industrial Recovery Act, and be able to wire\n            President Roosevelt an affirmative reply in connection with\n            the agreement addressed \"To Every Employer.\" \n            But to do so, with my modest knowledge of economics,\n            would mean arbitrary action on our part, with a \"blind\n            faith\" that we do not possess. \n            If we still further reduce the working hours to 35\n            per week (as the New Deal suggested) the increased cost of\n            production reaches the geometric progression stage, with\n            the result that our losses on current contracts, which we\n            see no way of passing along to our customers until we would\n            actually see no way of meeting our payroll or meeting our\n            bills, would mean disaster. \n            Listening in over the radio last night I understand\n            that 5,000 or more telegrams had been received by the\n            President indicating unconditional acceptance of the\n            Agreement. It is quite possible that we should do likewise,\n            regardless, just as we offered ourselves, body and\n            resources, in wartime. \n            I am giving expression to these thoughts even though\n            I feel the \"patriotic\" thing for us to do may be to go\n            ahead, \"blindly,\" and in spite of our objections or reasons\n            for not doing so, and sign the agreement. \n            Very Sincerely, \n            Edward L. Stone \n            Chairman of the BoardClearly, Stone expected no miracles, but he went\n         along with the N.I.R.A. and generally supported Roosevelt.\n         There are references to increasing business by 1937.\n         Correspondence ends the following year with Edward Stone's\n         death. The Stone Printing Company, however, is in business to\n         this very day.","These papers fill 455 special four-inch Hollinger storage\n         boxes (ca. 150 linear feet) and span the years 1895-1937.\n         There are three major series: Edward L. Stone's papers re his\n         personal life and diversified business, professional, and\n         civic concerns; papers concerned with his principal business,\n         the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia; and those papers concerned with the Borderland Coal\n         Company of West Virginia and Kentucky of which Stone was the\n         principal officer for many years. Because these series\n         basically are composed of Stone's personal papers, and because\n         there are interrelationships between material in one series\n         and that in another, the series have been maintained in the\n         boxes in the order in which they were found.","The papers are rich in material for many types of studies.\n         Because Stone's major concern was his printing business, there\n         is a great amount of material about that business, its labor\n         problems, economic problems, its professional associations,\n         relationships with its customers --especially the railroads\n         --and so on. Because Mr. Stone collected medieval manuscripts\n         and examples of fine printing that formed a great private\n         library, there is, in his personal papers, a good deal of\n         correspondence and material about this special interest. His\n         personal papers also contain considerable material about his\n         diversified business and civic interests. And the records of\n         the Borderland Coal Company--which Mr. Stone operated either\n         as president or as chairman of the board for twenty-seven\n         years--are rich in information concerning this vital industry,\n         its periods of economic success and decline, its relationships\n         with the railroads that moved its products, and its labor\n         problems.","See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"collection_ssim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["382"],"unitid_tesim":["382"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"access_terms_ssm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"acqinfo_ssim":["Before his death in 1938, the University of Virginia\n            Library had been negotiating with Edward L. Stone for the\n            purchase of his library. Mr. Stone had donated a number of\n            fine books, and some manuscripts, to the University of\n            Virginia Library, and its staff knew the value of his fine\n            private library. The tentative purchase price settled upon\n            was low principally because Mr. Stone wished his library to\n            remain intact. Unfortunately, Mr. Stone died before\n            negotiations were complete, but the Library concluded the\n            sale with his heirs in August 1938. As a result of this\n            purchase, the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of\n            Roanoke presented to the Library the files of\n            correspondence and other papers both of Mr. Stone's\n            extensive business interests and of his personal affairs.\n            The collection consisted of 207 letter boxes and\n            twenty-five \"large packing cases\" when it arrived at the\n            Library on August 11, 1939."],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"physdesc_tesim":["This collection\n         consists of approximately 500,000 items."],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eStored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections. \n\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access Restrictions"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eAfter arrival at the University, the collection was placed\n         in the stack areas of the then division of Rare Books and\n         Manuscripts of the Library, and was shelved in close proximity\n         to another large collection received only a year before, that\n         of the Low Moor Iron Company. The two comprised the largest\n         group of material in the division at the time, a group that,\n         unfortunately, was rarely used by researchers as there were no\n         finding aids to the mass, and interested researchers were\n         intimidated by the problems of research in the papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe collections remained in the stacks until 1958 when\n         expansion space in the division's storage area was reduced to\n         a minimum by the successful collecting program of the\n         intervening years. A review of the collections and their use\n         showed that the Stone collection and the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were rarely consulted, and it was decided to move them\n         out of the division's quarters to provide storage space for\n         collections that were being used by researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eSpace was located in the attic of a student dormitory, and\n         the division prepared the papers for long-term storage by\n         removing them from the old letter boxes in which they had\n         arrived. Each bundle of papers was placed between sheets of\n         gray, newspaper-storage cardboard sheets; the spine titles of\n         the old letter boxes were copied onto the cardboard sheets,\n         and the bundle was wrapped in brown paper, tied up with\n         string, and numbered in a coded sequence.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe collections remained in the attic of Lefevre House\n         until the fall of 1976 when, after the receipt of a grant from\n         the National Endowment for the Humanities for the processing\n         of the two collections, they were transported to the Alderman\n         Library building once more In the Library's receiving room,\n         the bundles were cleaned in the dust hood, untied and\n         unwrapped, and the contents transferred into gray, Hollinger\n         storage boxes before transfer into the storage areas of the\n         Manuscripts Department for processing. The coded numbers on\n         the bundles were recorded but proved to be of no use in\n         restoring order to the papers, badly out of sequence from\n         their many moves over the years. Nor did the spine titles and\n         dates from the original letters boxes prove to be of any\n         particular use in organizing the collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOnce processing work was completed at the end of the summer\n         of 1978, the Stone Papers were transferred back to the\n         dormitory attic as space in the Alderman Library building\n         remained short, and it was felt that adequate service on the\n         Stone Papers could be maintained from the attic now that a\n         guide to the papers had been prepared. (N.B. The Stone papers\n         were removed from the dormitory attic and transferred to the\n         University Library's high-density remote storage facility\n         following its opening in the mid-1990s.)\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the lists of box\n         contents that follow will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAs previously noted, the Stone papers were subjected to a\n         number of moves before processing began, and, unfortunately,\n         there seems to have been little organization of the papers in\n         Mr. Stone's files in his Roanoke office. Presumably, he and\n         his staff could locate material that was needed from the\n         files, but at the time that processing began in the fall of\n         1976, no discernible scheme of organization could be\n         determined.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to the\n         dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of useful\n         organization. Next, the spine titles of the original letter\n         boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the gray\n         cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory attic), but\n         they, too, proved useless.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThese steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors on\n         the collection, the new student processors were instructed to\n         begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents of the\n         collection. During this inventory, old folders were replaced\n         with acid-free ones, and the original folder headings were\n         copied onto the new ones. Some removal of papers clips was\n         accomplished, and the materials were reviewed and notes were\n         taken for the guide.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe processors found that Mr. Stone's papers were comprised\n         of three series. One was devoted to his personal affairs, and\n         contained material about his diverse business interests\n         outside his two major ones, and about his civic and\n         professional interests, as well as papers from his private\n         life. The second series contained the papers from his major\n         business and \"first love\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company of Roanoke; and the third series included a wealth of\n         material about the Borderland Coal Company, an enterprise that\n         Mr. Stone served for twenty-seven years, first as president\n         and later, as chairman of the board.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eFor a long time, we considered separating the three series\n         of papers, and the processors evolved a good system of colored\n         slips clipped to the boxes to identify material from each\n         series contained in a box. However, as they neared the end of\n         their inventory, the processors became convinced, and argued\n         successfully that the series should not be separated.\n         Basically, all these papers are Mr. Stone's private papers as\n         he was the major stockholder in the Stone Printing Company and\n         it was very much a personal operation. There are\n         interrelationships between material that was found standing in\n         different folders in the same box, and the processors\n         correctly feared that drastic reorganization would destroy\n         those relationships. Thus, we decided to accept their\n         argument, and the box contents were allowed to remain as we\n         found them.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eA certain amount of movement of boxes within the collection\n         probably would ease use of it. But what processing was\n         accomplished on this project took far longer than had been\n         anticipated, and there was no time in the late spring of 1978,\n         when the processors had to complete their work with the\n         project, to undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they\n         stand in the order in which we found them at the beginning of\n         the project.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAs has been stated above, the three series of papers in\n         this collection (Stone Personal; Borderland Coal Co.; and\n         Stone Printing and Mfg. Co.) have not been physically\n         separated and are scattered throughout the collection.\n         However, in the container listing which follows the three\n         series have been separated. Therefore, the listing for the\n         Edward L. Stone Personal Papers series begins with Box 11 of\n         the collection because that is the first box in which Stone's\n         personal papers can be found. (Boxes 1-10 appear in the\n         listing for the Borderland Coal Co. series.) This also means\n         that if a box contains material from more than one series it\n         will have more than one entry in the listing, so that to find\n         a complete listing of a particular box a researcher might need\n         to look at the listing for each of the three series. In\n         addition, some of the box entries in the listing are slightly\n         out of order, so that if a box appears to have no entry or\n         only a partial entry, in a particular series the entry is\n         sometimes picked up on the next page of the listing.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eListings of oversize material are located at the end of the\n         listing for each series.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization"],"arrangement_tesim":["After arrival at the University, the collection was placed\n         in the stack areas of the then division of Rare Books and\n         Manuscripts of the Library, and was shelved in close proximity\n         to another large collection received only a year before, that\n         of the Low Moor Iron Company. The two comprised the largest\n         group of material in the division at the time, a group that,\n         unfortunately, was rarely used by researchers as there were no\n         finding aids to the mass, and interested researchers were\n         intimidated by the problems of research in the papers.","The collections remained in the stacks until 1958 when\n         expansion space in the division's storage area was reduced to\n         a minimum by the successful collecting program of the\n         intervening years. A review of the collections and their use\n         showed that the Stone collection and the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were rarely consulted, and it was decided to move them\n         out of the division's quarters to provide storage space for\n         collections that were being used by researchers.","Space was located in the attic of a student dormitory, and\n         the division prepared the papers for long-term storage by\n         removing them from the old letter boxes in which they had\n         arrived. Each bundle of papers was placed between sheets of\n         gray, newspaper-storage cardboard sheets; the spine titles of\n         the old letter boxes were copied onto the cardboard sheets,\n         and the bundle was wrapped in brown paper, tied up with\n         string, and numbered in a coded sequence.","The collections remained in the attic of Lefevre House\n         until the fall of 1976 when, after the receipt of a grant from\n         the National Endowment for the Humanities for the processing\n         of the two collections, they were transported to the Alderman\n         Library building once more In the Library's receiving room,\n         the bundles were cleaned in the dust hood, untied and\n         unwrapped, and the contents transferred into gray, Hollinger\n         storage boxes before transfer into the storage areas of the\n         Manuscripts Department for processing. The coded numbers on\n         the bundles were recorded but proved to be of no use in\n         restoring order to the papers, badly out of sequence from\n         their many moves over the years. Nor did the spine titles and\n         dates from the original letters boxes prove to be of any\n         particular use in organizing the collection.","Once processing work was completed at the end of the summer\n         of 1978, the Stone Papers were transferred back to the\n         dormitory attic as space in the Alderman Library building\n         remained short, and it was felt that adequate service on the\n         Stone Papers could be maintained from the attic now that a\n         guide to the papers had been prepared. (N.B. The Stone papers\n         were removed from the dormitory attic and transferred to the\n         University Library's high-density remote storage facility\n         following its opening in the mid-1990s.)","The word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the lists of box\n         contents that follow will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.","As previously noted, the Stone papers were subjected to a\n         number of moves before processing began, and, unfortunately,\n         there seems to have been little organization of the papers in\n         Mr. Stone's files in his Roanoke office. Presumably, he and\n         his staff could locate material that was needed from the\n         files, but at the time that processing began in the fall of\n         1976, no discernible scheme of organization could be\n         determined.","The first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to the\n         dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of useful\n         organization. Next, the spine titles of the original letter\n         boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the gray\n         cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory attic), but\n         they, too, proved useless.","These steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors on\n         the collection, the new student processors were instructed to\n         begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents of the\n         collection. During this inventory, old folders were replaced\n         with acid-free ones, and the original folder headings were\n         copied onto the new ones. Some removal of papers clips was\n         accomplished, and the materials were reviewed and notes were\n         taken for the guide.","The processors found that Mr. Stone's papers were comprised\n         of three series. One was devoted to his personal affairs, and\n         contained material about his diverse business interests\n         outside his two major ones, and about his civic and\n         professional interests, as well as papers from his private\n         life. The second series contained the papers from his major\n         business and \"first love\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company of Roanoke; and the third series included a wealth of\n         material about the Borderland Coal Company, an enterprise that\n         Mr. Stone served for twenty-seven years, first as president\n         and later, as chairman of the board.","For a long time, we considered separating the three series\n         of papers, and the processors evolved a good system of colored\n         slips clipped to the boxes to identify material from each\n         series contained in a box. However, as they neared the end of\n         their inventory, the processors became convinced, and argued\n         successfully that the series should not be separated.\n         Basically, all these papers are Mr. Stone's private papers as\n         he was the major stockholder in the Stone Printing Company and\n         it was very much a personal operation. There are\n         interrelationships between material that was found standing in\n         different folders in the same box, and the processors\n         correctly feared that drastic reorganization would destroy\n         those relationships. Thus, we decided to accept their\n         argument, and the box contents were allowed to remain as we\n         found them.","A certain amount of movement of boxes within the collection\n         probably would ease use of it. But what processing was\n         accomplished on this project took far longer than had been\n         anticipated, and there was no time in the late spring of 1978,\n         when the processors had to complete their work with the\n         project, to undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they\n         stand in the order in which we found them at the beginning of\n         the project.","As has been stated above, the three series of papers in\n         this collection (Stone Personal; Borderland Coal Co.; and\n         Stone Printing and Mfg. Co.) have not been physically\n         separated and are scattered throughout the collection.\n         However, in the container listing which follows the three\n         series have been separated. Therefore, the listing for the\n         Edward L. Stone Personal Papers series begins with Box 11 of\n         the collection because that is the first box in which Stone's\n         personal papers can be found. (Boxes 1-10 appear in the\n         listing for the Borderland Coal Co. series.) This also means\n         that if a box contains material from more than one series it\n         will have more than one entry in the listing, so that to find\n         a complete listing of a particular box a researcher might need\n         to look at the listing for each of the three series. In\n         addition, some of the box entries in the listing are slightly\n         out of order, so that if a box appears to have no entry or\n         only a partial entry, in a particular series the entry is\n         sometimes picked up on the next page of the listing.","Listings of oversize material are located at the end of the\n         listing for each series."],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cemph render=\"bold\"\u003eBiography of Edward L. Stone\u003c/emph\u003e\u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eEdward Lee Stone was born on September 15, 1864, in\n         Liberty (now Bedford) Virginia, the son of John Harmon Stone\n         and Mary Witt Stone. He was reared in very modest\n         circumstances, and received no more than an elementary school\n         education, yet he became one of the wealthiest and most\n         prominent citizens in the state of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's career in the printing business is typical\n         of the fabled American dream. At ten years of age, having\n         recently lost his father, Stone was in the boys' playground of\n         his school. J. R. Guy, the editor of the Bedford Sentinel\n         newspaper, came to the playground looking for William Fellers,\n         Stone's cousin. When Stone asked Mr. Guy what he wanted with\n         William, Guy replied \"I want him to carry the papers. Stone\n         said, \"I'll carry 'em' for you.\" After being a delivery boy\n         for the Sentinel, Stone learned to set type and worked\n         evenings after school for five cents an evening; twenty-five\n         cents on Saturday. Less than a year later, economics\n         necessitated that he quit school to pursue his job full time.\n         Stone learned his lessons well, and showed enthusiasm in every\n         phase of his work. Young Stone worked alongside a window, and\n         enjoyed nothing better than to jump out into the street and\n         scrap with some passing youngster, returning to his duties\n         after the fun was over.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone was given more and more duties which he performed to\n         this employer's total satisfaction. At the age of sixteen, for\n         some now-inexplicable reason, Stone left the newspaper\n         business to work for a mercantile establishment, He soon grew\n         bored, however, and returned to printer's ink. This time he\n         worked for the Democrat, a weekly newspaper in Buchanan,\n         Virginia, then a thriving town at the intersection of the\n         James River and the Kanawha Canal.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOnce, at the age of sixteen, Stone was entrusted with\n         getting out an entire edition of the paper by himself. The\n         editor was in court and many workmen were out sick. Stone and\n         an assistant set type at breakneck speed beginning at 7:15\n         A.M. and had the entire seven-column paper completed by noon\n         --an amazing feat. Stone was out playing ball by 2 P.M. and\n         earned a $5.00 bonus from his boss, editor William J. Boyd. In\n         1882, Boyd informed Stone that he was going to open a printing\n         office in Roanoke, Virginia, then a small town. Boyd wanted\n         Stone to be manager, and on July 20th, 1882, both men arrived\n         in Roanoke. A place could not be found for the new enterprise\n         however, and both returned to Buchanan. Stone became\n         disillusioned with the small scope of opportunities Buchanan\n         provided, and, with an ambition to \"become somebody\" in the\n         printing business, set out for Lynchburg. Landing in Lynchburg\n         in January 1883 he applied for work on the News and, after a\n         few days, secured a position as compositor. Here he remained\n         until March, achieving considerable reputation as a fast\n         compositor, yet not satisfied. Stone really longed for a\n         position in the printing business. John P. Bell offered Stone\n         a minor position in a branch office he had planned to open in\n         Roanoke. The position was, in most respects, inferior to the\n         one he had already held, but Stone gladly took it. He worked\n         hard, and showed superior business ability which impressed Mr.\n         Bell so much that when the manager of the business died in\n         1885 his position was offered to Stone. The position was not\n         offered without some misgivings because of Stone's youth (he\n         was only twenty-one) and his lack of business experience.\n         Stone, however, did such a good job as manager that Bell\n         realized that he had made the right choice. Stone eventually\n         gained control of the business and became president of the\n         company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eHis position was secure enough that in 1890, he married\n         Miss Minnie Fishburn, daughter of J. A. Fishburn, a prominent\n         business man of Roanoke. The couple had one child, Mary\n         Katherine Stone.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's printing business grew in size and wealth.\n         By 1920 it was acknowledged by many to be the best-equipped\n         printing corporation in the south, and one of the largest as\n         well. He had many other business interests. He was president\n         of the Borderland Coal Corporation, president of the Virginia\n         Bridge and Iron Company, vice president and later president of\n         the Walker Foundry and Machine Company, chairman of the First\n         National Exchange Bank, and president of his primary business\n         and \"first love,\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn March 1896 Stone was presented with a petition signed by\n         fourteen Roanoke business men requesting that he run for\n         mayor. Stone was very tempted, but a law stating that no one\n         in Roanoke public office would be permitted to do business\n         with the city stopped him. Stone felt that not being able to\n         do business with the city would be unfair to his stockholders.\n         Stone, a civic-minded individual, was chairman of the Roanoke\n         Community Fund in 1924, and of the City Planning and Zoning\n         Commission. He was also chairman of the war bond committee\n         during the First World War, and belonged to many societies and\n         organizations, including the American Institute of Graphic\n         Arts, the Florida State Historical Society, the Shenandoah\n         Club of Roanoke, the Country Club of Roanoke, the Roanoke Gun\n         Club, the Roanoke German Club, the Virginia Historical Society\n         (life member), the Better Printing Committee of the United\n         Typothetae of America, the Roanoke Rotary Club, the\n         International Benjamin Franklin Society of New York, and the\n         board of trustees of the Committee to Assist the Blind.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone was also an extremely charitable man. He gave\n         large sums of money to the Roanoke Hospital and the Roanoke\n         Relief Fund, helped endow Roanoke College, gave heavily to the\n         Boy Scouts and the War Relief Clearing House, and donated\n         money to the Coal Miner's Relief Fund--even though it was\n         those very coal miners who were striking in Stone's coal\n         mines. He believed, however, that the miners' children should\n         not have to suffer for their parents' stand. The Stones also\n         gave money to support French children who had been left\n         fatherless as a result of the war. Stone, a Presbyterian,\n         donated $100.00 to the Jewish Relief Fund in 1917 to aid the\n         starving Jews in Russia displaced by the war, and also sent\n         funds to the Tuskeegee Institute.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's principal hobby was book collecting, and his\n         library was appraised at $50,000.00 in 1939. Among his\n         treasured pieces was a page from the original Gutenberg Bible.\n         Stone's library was considered to be the largest and\n         best-equipped privately-owned library in the state of\n         Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone's income fluctuated through the years. In 1917 and\n         1918, partly through stock sales, Stone declared an income of\n         $129,383.39 and $91,483.00 respectively, but 1926 was\n         considered an average year, and he declared an income of\n         $57,500.00.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAlthough Stone was a humanitarian and philanthropist, he\n         believed in keeping total control of his business and watched\n         his employees closely. He did not strongly oppose unionization\n         in his printing shop, but fully opposed unionization in his\n         coal mines, even using scabs to break strikes.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone suffered financial reversals during the Great\n         Depression but he reorganized his holdings to prevent a great\n         loss, and he weathered the Depression better than most\n         businessmen. His health had begun to fail by 1929, and by 1934\n         he was virtually bedridden. Finally, after a protracted\n         illness, Edward L. Stone died on June 3, 1938, at the age of\n         seventy-four.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\u003cemph render=\"bold\"\u003eA History of the Borderland Coal\n         Company\u003c/emph\u003e\u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company derived its name from its\n         dual location in Mingo County, West Virginia, and Pike County,\n         Kentucky, an area bordered by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy\n         River. The mines proper were located in Kentucky, and the coal\n         washers and other processing equipment were located in West\n         Virginia. The company operated from 1903 to 1934. While the\n         Borderland Coal Company was incorporated in 1903, the first\n         batch of coal was not shipped until September 1, 1904. In that\n         year J. S. Tipton, formerly the majority stockholder, resigned\n         his post as general manager of Borderland Coal and sold most\n         of his stock to Edward L. Stone. At that time Stone was\n         president of the Young Men's Investment Club which owned a\n         large number of shares in the Borderland Coal Company, and\n         thus, Stone controlled the club's activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company initially owned approximately\n         1,000 acres of coal land. The company mined bituminous or soft\n         coal, and sold slack coal, used by railroads and industrial\n         concerns, egg coal, used in private furnaces, and nut coal,\n         the highest quality of bituminous coal, used in the kitchens\n         of private homes.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company grew through the early 1900's.\n         In 1905, a second plant was opened called simply \"Operation\n         #2.\" The company declared its first stock dividend in November\n         1907, and began the construction of an electric plant,\n         cableway, conveyor, and tipple at a cost of $27,950.00. In\n         1908 a new coal washer was installed. By late 1914 the\n         Borderland Company held 3,000 acres of coal lands containing\n         an estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal. The profits of the\n         Borderland Coal Company increased from $1,250.00 in 1904 to\n         $11,243.77 in 1905, to $49,977.21 in 1908, and to $110,532.68\n         in 1910.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe amount of coal mined increased from 246 railroad\n         carloads in 1904 to 3,781 railroad carloads in 1910, and\n         expansion continued until the outbreak of World War I. The\n         coal paid a regular annual dividend averaging 15-30%. Prior to\n         1911, the Leckie Coal Company of Cleveland, Ohio, was the\n         exclusive agency for the sale of Borderland Coal. In that\n         year, however, the Borderland Coal Sales Company was formed,\n         with officers of the Borderland Coal Company doubling as\n         officials of the new company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe town of Borderland, West Virginia, was a company town,\n         with company-owned homes, stores, school, and a church. The\n         rents in the company homes appear to have been within the\n         miners' incomes. The prices in the company stores, however,\n         were exorbitant. In fact, profits for the company store were\n         the second biggest money maker for the company in 1911,\n         totaling $11,811.78. The largest profit maker was coal, which\n         netted $91,741.07, while the sale of powder was ranked third,\n         totaling $3,165.86.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWorld War I created a great demand and a high prices for\n         coal, and the Borderland Coal Company prospered despite\n         difficulty finding railroad cars to transport its produce. In\n         1917, the company paid a record 60% dividend. On January 1,\n         1918, the company re-chartered itself in Virginia, and\n         patented the trademark and the name of the Borderland Coal\n         Company. The new capital stock was valued at nearly\n         $800,000.00. In November 1918 construction began on a new\n         tipple at a cost of $116,000.00. After the First World War,\n         the Borderland Coal Company experienced a decrease in both the\n         demand and the price of coal. The problem of labor and\n         unionization, however, ultimately caused the company's\n         demise.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eBorderland Coal Company officials had been concerned over\n         the growth of coal mine unionization long before any major\n         trouble began. As early as 1915, L. E. Armentrout, the\n         corporation's Vice President and General Manager began using\n         \"secret service men\" to infiltrate the ranks of the miners and\n         report on any union activity. It is not known whether these\n         agents were U.S. government agents or private investigators,\n         but the latter is presumed. One of them reported on March 10,\n         1915:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eI spent the entire day Monday with Emmett and Ed McKee,\n            Gus Cantrell, and Henry McKnight, all white Americans. We\n            played cards in an empty house on the Kentucky side. We had\n            a nice fire and everything was very comfortable. We would\n            play cards until we got tired, then we would stop\n            everything and talk unionism. Gus Cantrell said that he had\n            been talking to the boys for the last year, trying to get\n            them to organize a local of the U.M.W. of A. He said that\n            there was plenty of good, solid union men and that there\n            were also a lot of rotten scabs here. That he got into a\n            conversation with George McCormick, a white man, and\n            McCormick told him that he didn't believe in the union and\n            that he didn't want anything to do with the U.M.W. of A. .\n            . . I told Cantrell that I would be willing to help\n            organize the local. He said, \"Well, the work is picking up\n            now and we will wait until the boys get a good pay day,\n            then we will put this thing through.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eBorderland Coal Company successfully resisted unionization\n         in the years before World War I. Wartime regulations prevented\n         strikes and hindered unionization, but after the war many\n         miners felt that it was time to air their grievances. Miners\n         disagreed over specific demands, but most felt that grave\n         inequalities existed in the rates for day workers established\n         by the Bituminous Coal Commission. The miners requested that a\n         conference be held but this request was turned down by the\n         Commission. Dissatisfaction became more pronounced, and during\n         the middle of July 1920 the miners in some of the subdistricts\n         walked out in an unauthorized strike. Shutdowns spread to\n         Indiana and Illinois. President Woodrow Wilson intervened and\n         told the miners that if they returned to work a grievance\n         committee would be formed. The miners returned to work August\n         10, 1920, and the committee was set up. Management and labor\n         agreed on a wage increase and all was quiet for a while.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWest Virginia was in a unique position in that most of the\n         mines in that state were non-union. The Interstate Commerce\n         Commission fixed freight rates with a \"differential\" low\n         enough that West Virginia coal would not be eliminated by\n         production from other fields closer to their market. When the\n         market for coal was good, the differential also allowed the\n         union coal fields of Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois to pay\n         the union scale of wages and still sell their coal in\n         competition with the product of non-union fields, such as\n         those in West Virginia. When the demand for coal was low and\n         prices receded, however, the differential no longer aided the\n         union fields and they began to experience an adverse effect.\n         These conditions appeared after the First World War, and as a\n         result operators of unionized mines demanded the unionization\n         of the Wast Virginia coal fields. Thus the U.M.W. put pressure\n         on all non-union fields, including those of the Borderland\n         Coal Company. Borderland Coal Company had been fairly quiet\n         about unionization up to this time. On May 5, 1920, however,\n         L. E. Armentrout had issued the following notice:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eTO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE BORDERLAND\n            COAL COMPANY \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eConsiderable efforts are being made to organize this\n            field and certain advantages are being held out to some men\n            showing the advisability of belonging to the Union. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eThis is a free country and this company is not going\n            to dictate to its employees whether they shall or shall not\n            join the Union, but for your information and for the\n            information of your friends, we wish to state positively\n            that no Union man will be employed by this company, and if\n            you find that it is to your interest to join the Union, we\n            would suggest that you arrange to move out and call at the\n            office and we will be glad to settle with you. This will\n            save you as well as the company further trouble, but we\n            sincerely hope that the pleasant relations between the\n            Company and the men will continue, and that each and every\n            one of you will continue in our employ. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eYours very truly, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eL. E. Armentrout, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eManager \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eBy late May, 1920 the situation had become acute.\n         Armentrout wrote to James P. Woods, president of the\n         Borderland Coal Company:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eThe organizers have just about put us out of business at\n            both plants . . . We have a good many men who have not\n            joined the Union, but these agitators are intimidating them\n            and have them so scared they won't attempt to try to work.\n            I will have a conference with the West Virginia attorneys\n            today to see if I cannot get a temporary injunction, or\n            probably prosecution for these intimidators. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eWe have three Deputy Sheriffs in Kentucky and expect\n            two more in today. We have both plants pretty well policed\n            at night, but still some of the intimidators slip through\n            the mines and get to some of the men. . . \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eNow that the primary is over, we believe that\n            Unionism will die out. . . . In fact, no Union cards have\n            been issued and for the past two or three days they have\n            not been able to locate the man who has been giving them\n            orders on the stores. Some of them (the fired Union Men)\n            have already remarked that they could not support their\n            families on $7.00 to $8.00 a week, and they hated to go to\n            bed at night when their children were crying for something\n            to eat.\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eUnionism, however, did not die out. Union \"agitators\" saw\n         to that no coal could be mined at the Borderland Company's\n         coal fields. In a letter to Stone dated July 6, 1920,\n         Armentrout stated that he was able to get \"very little action\n         from the Governor of West Virginia. . .I just finished talking\n         to Governor Morrow's office in Frankfort, Kentucky, and the\n         home guards will likely entrain today. They will likely have\n         machine guns so if that they get in according to promise, we\n         think that conditions will improve very rapidly.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company kept its promise and\n         dispossessed hundreds of its employees. Fired from their jobs\n         and ousted from their homes, they were forced to live in\n         tents. In a union pamphlet entitled \"Borderland and Bullets\"\n         these men told of the horrible indignities forced on company\n         employees who joined the union. The purpose of the pamphlet\n         was to oppose the re-election of Colonel James P. Woods,\n         president of the Borderland Coal Company, to the U. S. House\n         of Representatives. Woods ran for re-election in the sixth\n         Virginia district claiming that he had been always fair to the\n         working man, and he won.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe situation at Borderland soon deteriorated into\n         violence. A pamphlet dated \"winter, 1920\" and entitled \n         \u003ctitle type=\"simple\" render=\"doublequote\" href=\"\"\u003eHell with the Lid Off in Mingo\n         County, West Virginia,\u003c/title\u003egives an account of drunken\n         company guards wounding a number of workers by firing into\n         their tents. On May 12, 1920, Edward Stone, chairman of the\n         board of the Borderland Coal Company, had examined an\n         advertisement for the Thompson sub-machine gun but had decided\n         that \"the gun is not sufficient for our needs at the mine.\" On\n         May 16 Governor John J. Cornwell of West Virginia sent a\n         telegram to the War Department in Washington requesting that\n         Federal troops be sent to the Tug River District, where\n         Borderland Coal Company was located. There had been fighting\n         in the Tug River District for nearly four days. Secretary of\n         War John Weeks, basing his decision on reports from one of his\n         staff officers who had visited the area, decided that federal\n         troops were not needed. Four days later Governor Cornwell\n         declared martial law in West Virginia. Militiamen from both\n         Kentucky and West Virginia were involved in the fighting.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn the summer of 1921 the U. M. W. began its famous \"summer\n         march\" which precipitated guerilla warfare between the\n         pro-union and anti-union forces. On June 29, Governor Cornwell\n         ordered the citizens of West Virginia to take up arms and\n         defend themselves against the pro-unionists. The papers of the\n         Borderland Coal Company include lists of casualties written on\n         scrap paper, such as \"Stone Mountain, 5 Baldwin men and 4\n         citizens killed (one the mayor), 2 Feltz Bros. killed, 2\n         military companies there, 2 on the way.\" In April 1922 the\n         coal miners' grievances came to a head and they struck. They\n         demanded a continuation of the system of bargaining and\n         contract, including the \"checkoff,\" which is a list devised to\n         check on payment of union dues. In addition to demanding\n         stable wage rates, the miners demanded a six-hour day and a\n         five-day week. These increased hours would mean steady\n         employment, one of the miners' main goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe strike apparently took some pressure off the Borderland\n         Coal Company because after 1922 there is little or nothing in\n         the collection regarding unionization. Company officials had\n         managed to avoid unionization of their mines but had caused\n         the company much damage in the process. Bitter feelings\n         prevailed after the strike. A letter from L. E. Armentrout to\n         the Borderland Coal Company dated 1923 states:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eGentlemen, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eMy attention has just been called to the enclosed\n            blotter bearing the union label. It has been the policy of\n            this company for several years, in fact, ever since we have\n            been in business, not to recognize any Union whatever. We\n            spent, or lost, something like $300,000.00 fighting the\n            United Mine Workers here in 1920 and 1921, and also have\n            some injunctions against them. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eFor your information, please do not place any more\n            printing with any Union shop, and if you have any more of\n            these blotters, tear them up or dispose of them otherwise\n            as it is inconsistent with our policy, and we positively\n            will not stand for it.\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhile much of the collection regards labor struggles, there\n         is little material regarding immigrant labor although 40% of\n         the workers were immigrants. West Virginia was a sparsely\n         populated state at this time, and immigrants were needed to\n         supplement the labor in their mines. The first constitution of\n         the state provided for the appointment of an immigration\n         officer whose duties were to advertise the attractions of West\n         Virginia throughout Europe and make arrangements with\n         industries to supply transportation for foreign workmen. Of\n         the 80,877 workers employed in the West Virginia coal mines in\n         1915, 49,753 were American-born (37,918 white and 11,835\n         black) and 31,124 were foreign-born. Italians made up the\n         largest percentage of the immigrant labor force, about one\n         third of all foreigners employed in the mines while Hungarians\n         comprised the second-most prevalent nationality, approximately\n         one-sixth of the foreign born total.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company never fully recovered from the\n         trouble that paralyzed its mines in 1920. The 1920's were a\n         very depressed period for the mining industry in general and\n         the depression of 1929 brought prices to an all time low. Coal\n         production fell precipitously from 1927-1933 although there\n         seemed to be a slight upturn that year. In 1927, L. E.\n         Armentrout resigned from the company and a year later the\n         Borderland Coal Sales Company was dissolved due to lack of\n         business. The Norfolk and Chesapeake Coal Company became\n         exclusive agents for the sale of Borderland coal. At a meeting\n         of the Borderland Coal Company's board of directors in 1929,\n         it was stated that since the market for coal was so poor, it\n         hardly paid to keep the mines going. The Borderland Coal\n         Company mines were only worked four days during the entire\n         month of May 1932. In a letter from Edward L. Stone to a\n         Borderland Coal Company creditor, Stone wrote that as the\n         Borderland Coal Company did not have the money to pay its\n         debts, all creditors would have to wait for their money, and\n         that he hoped that he could avoid declaring the Borderland\n         Coal Company bankrupt. In 1934 Stone received a letter from a\n         stockholder consoling him for having to \"lose Borderland\n         Coal.\" Apparently the company was then out of business.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe demise of the Borderland Coal Company was the result of\n         broad national trends; the product of their mines was of high\n         quality, and in good supply. The problem of labor and\n         unionization paralyzed the Borderland Coal Company. Lack of\n         production in the mines meant that the Borderland Coal Company\n         could not pay dividends which affected their stockholders. The\n         bad mining conditions, a lack of demand for coal and low\n         market prices made it impossible for the Borderland Coal\n         Company to recover. The return of the coal-rich region of\n         Alsace-Lorraine to France meant that our allies no longer\n         needed American coal. Domestic demand increased, but it did\n         not compensate for decreased industrial use. The switch to\n         alternative forms of energy such as oil, also damaged the coal\n         industry. Although prosperity returned to the rest of the\n         country, the coal industry never totally recovered, and the\n         Borderland Coal Company was one of the victims.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOfficers of the Borderland Coal Company: Edward Lee Stone\n         --President ca. 1907-1919, Chairman of the Board 1919-ca.\n         1934; James P. Woods (attorney at law --U. S. Representative,\n         6th Virginia District) --Vice President ca. 1905-1922,\n         President 1922-1932; L. E. Armentrout --Manager ca. 1905-1915,\n         Vice President and Manager ca. 1915-1927; Ernest B. Fishburn\n         --Secretary-Treasurer ca. 1905-1930\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOfficers of the Borderland Coal Sales Company: L. E.\n         Armentrout --President; Edward Lee Stone --Vice President;\n         James P. Woods --second Vice President; R. N. Osborne,\n         Jr.--Secretary (discharged in 1924); W. W.\n         Austin--Secretary.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\u003cemph render=\"bold\"\u003eA History of the Stone Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company\u003c/emph\u003e\u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eThe Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia, was established in 1883 as the Bell Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company. John P. Bell of Lynchburg served as\n         president, and Samuel J. Fields of Abington, Virginia, served\n         as manager. Edward L. Stone, the eventual chairman of the\n         board, was then employed as a journeyman printer and pressman.\n         In 1885, Stone succeeded Fields as the company's manager, and\n         his brother, Albert A. Stone, joined the business.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAt this time the company occupied a small site on Commerce\n         Street in Roanoke, an area about twenty by twenty-five feet.\n         In 1889 the plant was seriously damaged by fire, and within a\n         few months, the company moved to larger quarters on the second\n         and third floors of the Gale Building on Jefferson Street.\n         Shortly thereafter, the controlling interest was purchased by\n         Edward L. Stone, with the remainder of the stock being\n         purchased by J. B. Fishburn and Albert A. Stone.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn 1892, the name of the company was changed to the Stone\n         Printing and Manufacturing Company, and the company occupied a\n         new, three-story building at 116 North Jefferson Street. In\n         1896, a duplicate building was added on the north side; in a\n         few years another addition was placed at the rear. The company\n         built another addition in 1902 but five years later the old\n         structure was torn down and a new two-stories building, 210 x\n         110 feet, was completed. The new structure gave the Stone\n         Printing Company 50,000 square feet of space, which is about\n         100 times the floor space originally occupied on Commerce\n         Street. The company today occupies the same site on Jefferson\n         Street.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn 1883 the capital stock of the company was $5,000.00, and\n         in 1900, it was increased to $50,000.00. In 1910 the capital\n         stock had grown to $350,000.00. All of the stock increases\n         were taken, with one exception, by the original stockholders.\n         Sales grew from $84,371.00 in 1900 to $179,433.78 in 1905, and\n         from $253,781.15 in 1909 to a high of $608,174.36 in 1920.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone had considered selling his printing company to a\n         British syndicate in 1912. He felt, however, that business was\n         good and getting better and eventually decided to retain\n         control. By 1920 the Stone Printing Company had customers in\n         half the states in the union and in some foreign countries.\n         Between 1920 and 1929, however, sales showed a steady decline.\n         In 1929 they fell to $399,701.43 and declined throughout the\n         depression.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Stone Printing Company's most important business came\n         from railroads as the company printed tariff and rate\n         schedules as well as tickets. Since the railroad rates changed\n         rapidly during the early 1900's, railroad printing was very\n         lucrative. The principal railroad customer and in fact, the\n         largest customer, of the Stone Printing Company was the\n         Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1910 the Norfolk and Western\n         Railroad accounted for $85,652.60 in sales. Combined with the\n         sales to other railroads in 1910, the total of railroad sales\n         was approximately $193,000.00 of a total of $339,678.92 --well\n         over half of the total sales of the Stone Printing\n         Company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eCommercial printing comprised the second largest source of\n         the Stone Printing Company's business, accounting for\n         $135,110.32 of a total $608,174.36 in 1920. The fourth largest\n         amount of business, after the Norfolk and Western Railway,\n         other railroads, and commercial printing, was school and\n         college printing. The Stone Printing Company printed the\n         yearbooks for the University of Virginia, the Georgia\n         Institute of Technology, the University of Mississippi,\n         Randolph-Macon College, Hollins College, Virginia Polytechnic\n         Institute, and others.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe profit margin in printing often was small, and thus\n         costs had to be carefully controlled. Edward L. Stone was a\n         commissioner of the American Printers Cost Commission which\n         kept a close watch on printing costs and tried to keep them\n         down. Another serious problem that bothered Stone Printing\n         Company was unionization. As most Roanoke printing shops,\n         Stone Printing Company was an open shop where either union or\n         non-union people could be employed. The company's officers did\n         not penalize or prevent workers from joining the union. The\n         International Typographical Union, however, put pressure on\n         Edward Stone to turn his establishment into a closed shop,\n         that is, a shop that would hire only union members, pay union\n         wages, and abide by union rules. Paying union wages did not\n         trouble Stone because he already paid more than the union\n         scale in most cases. For example, in 1905 when the union scale\n         was $13.50 per week, Stone pointed out that while two of his\n         employees received less and one received the union wage, over\n         forty workers received between $15.00 and $25.00 per week.\n         Stone felt it folly to pay all workers the same because, he\n         said, \"some are so much better than others.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's paternalistic attitude toward his employees\n         is reflected in a collection of letters exchanged with his\n         workers. Forced to fire an employee who lied about being able\n         to work on a printing press, Stone lent him the money to go to\n         printing school, and re-hired him when he had learned the\n         trade. Another worker left the company without notice, heading\n         home to Lexington, Virginia. When the employee needed money to\n         return to Roanoke, Stone lent it to him with the understanding\n         that the employee would never again leave without asking\n         Stone's permission. Another employee left Stone without notice\n         to work for another printing firm, but when the employee\n         wanted his old job back, Stone gave it to him. Stone\n         frequently lent money to his employees, and did not press them\n         for repayment.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eMany of the union's rules, however bothered Stone. Among\n         the ones he objected to were (1) in all cases when it became\n         necessary to reduce the working force of an office, the last\n         person hired should be the first dropped; (2) in machine\n         composition, all work must be time work and no piece work\n         should be allowed; (3) no member of the International\n         Typographical Union should engage in a speed contest either by\n         hand composition or on machines, and violation of this rule\n         was to be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00, or by\n         suspension; (4) an eight hour day (Stone Printing had a 9 to\n         9-1/2 hour day); and (5) no one holding active membership in a\n         local union should sign any individual or private contract\n         with any employer, agreeing to work for any stated time,\n         length, or conditions as the union alone was to have the power\n         to contract for conditions, wages, and hours. This fifth\n         stipulation bothered Stone the most for he firmly believed\n         that an employee should perform whatever duty Stone demanded\n         of him.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOn November 20, 1907, there was a union strike in Roanoke.\n         The union men employed by the Stone Printing Company walked\n         out, and the union formed a picket line in front of the Stone\n         Printing Company. Stone wrote to Joel Cuthin, Mayor of\n         Roanoke: \"We have never been opposed to the union, but we have\n         objected to having them run our business, unless they acquired\n         it by ownership.\" The union put pressure on the Stone Printing\n         Company. A memo to Edward Stone from Albert Stone dated 1915\n         told of some Stone Printing Company material being returned by\n         certain Roanoke merchants because they did not bear the union\n         label. The amount of material returned, however, was very\n         small. The union pressure placed on Stone was generally\n         peaceful and there was no violence or destruction. After the\n         unsuccessful strike, Stone took back all of his union men.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAfter 1920 the company's sales and profits declined. In\n         1927, Albert Stone, who had assumed the presidency of the\n         company, commissioned Ernst and Ernst, financial analysts, to\n         examine the operation of Stone Printing and make\n         recommendations for improving business. The analysts found\n         Stone Printing to be an innovative company which sought and\n         found new markets such as school and college printing and the\n         printing of calendars, and which had sound leadership. Ernst\n         and Ernst felt that it was a change in economic conditions,\n         not the company itself, that caused the company's problems.\n         Competition had changed and grown in intensity by 1920, making\n         the ability to sell most important. The analysts recommended\n         the creation of a sales department coupled with more\n         aggressive selling techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLater, Albert Stone, Jr., Edward Stone's nephew, claimed\n         that it was the reluctance of the Stone Printing Company to\n         cut prices during the depression of 1919-1922 that caused the\n         company's problems. He claimed that by the time the company\n         did cut its prices, Stone Printing had lost many of its most\n         valued customers, and suggested a closer watch of costs\n         coupled with an expansion of the calendar line. Although these\n         suggestions were followed, business did not improve.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhen the Great Depression hit in 1929, business worsened.\n         Loyal customers and a solid financial base kept the Stone\n         Printing Company from bankruptcy. Edward Stone's health was\n         failing by 1929, and most of the company's affairs were passed\n         on to his brother Albert. In a letter from Edward Stone to the\n         board of directors in 1930, he wrote: \n         \u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cp\u003ethe years operations to date, with vastly improved\n            selling efforts, has only brought us the same volume of\n            business that we had last year but the increased\n            organization expense, incident to this extra selling\n            effort, and the extraordinary competition in the matter of\n            price, has prevented us from obtaining prices that we\n            should really obtain for our products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003eEdward Stone recommended a reduction in salaries\n         across the board from the president on down, and layoffs of\n         certain personnel.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhen Franklin D. Roosevelt first initiated his New Deal\n         program in 1933, Edward Stone was apprehensive. In a letter\n         dated July 26, 1933, he wrote: \n         \u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like the best in the world to go along with the\n            National Industrial Recovery Act, and be able to wire\n            President Roosevelt an affirmative reply in connection with\n            the agreement addressed \"To Every Employer.\" \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eBut to do so, with my modest knowledge of economics,\n            would mean arbitrary action on our part, with a \"blind\n            faith\" that we do not possess. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eIf we still further reduce the working hours to 35\n            per week (as the New Deal suggested) the increased cost of\n            production reaches the geometric progression stage, with\n            the result that our losses on current contracts, which we\n            see no way of passing along to our customers until we would\n            actually see no way of meeting our payroll or meeting our\n            bills, would mean disaster. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eListening in over the radio last night I understand\n            that 5,000 or more telegrams had been received by the\n            President indicating unconditional acceptance of the\n            Agreement. It is quite possible that we should do likewise,\n            regardless, just as we offered ourselves, body and\n            resources, in wartime. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eI am giving expression to these thoughts even though\n            I feel the \"patriotic\" thing for us to do may be to go\n            ahead, \"blindly,\" and in spite of our objections or reasons\n            for not doing so, and sign the agreement. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eVery Sincerely, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eEdward L. Stone \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eChairman of the Board\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003eClearly, Stone expected no miracles, but he went\n         along with the N.I.R.A. and generally supported Roosevelt.\n         There are references to increasing business by 1937.\n         Correspondence ends the following year with Edward Stone's\n         death. The Stone Printing Company, however, is in business to\n         this very day.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Biographical/Historical Information"],"bioghist_tesim":["of Edward L. StoneEdward Lee Stone was born on September 15, 1864, in\n         Liberty (now Bedford) Virginia, the son of John Harmon Stone\n         and Mary Witt Stone. He was reared in very modest\n         circumstances, and received no more than an elementary school\n         education, yet he became one of the wealthiest and most\n         prominent citizens in the state of Virginia.","Edward Stone's career in the printing business is typical\n         of the fabled American dream. At ten years of age, having\n         recently lost his father, Stone was in the boys' playground of\n         his school. J. R. Guy, the editor of the Bedford Sentinel\n         newspaper, came to the playground looking for William Fellers,\n         Stone's cousin. When Stone asked Mr. Guy what he wanted with\n         William, Guy replied \"I want him to carry the papers. Stone\n         said, \"I'll carry 'em' for you.\" After being a delivery boy\n         for the Sentinel, Stone learned to set type and worked\n         evenings after school for five cents an evening; twenty-five\n         cents on Saturday. Less than a year later, economics\n         necessitated that he quit school to pursue his job full time.\n         Stone learned his lessons well, and showed enthusiasm in every\n         phase of his work. Young Stone worked alongside a window, and\n         enjoyed nothing better than to jump out into the street and\n         scrap with some passing youngster, returning to his duties\n         after the fun was over.","Stone was given more and more duties which he performed to\n         this employer's total satisfaction. At the age of sixteen, for\n         some now-inexplicable reason, Stone left the newspaper\n         business to work for a mercantile establishment, He soon grew\n         bored, however, and returned to printer's ink. This time he\n         worked for the Democrat, a weekly newspaper in Buchanan,\n         Virginia, then a thriving town at the intersection of the\n         James River and the Kanawha Canal.","Once, at the age of sixteen, Stone was entrusted with\n         getting out an entire edition of the paper by himself. The\n         editor was in court and many workmen were out sick. Stone and\n         an assistant set type at breakneck speed beginning at 7:15\n         A.M. and had the entire seven-column paper completed by noon\n         --an amazing feat. Stone was out playing ball by 2 P.M. and\n         earned a $5.00 bonus from his boss, editor William J. Boyd. In\n         1882, Boyd informed Stone that he was going to open a printing\n         office in Roanoke, Virginia, then a small town. Boyd wanted\n         Stone to be manager, and on July 20th, 1882, both men arrived\n         in Roanoke. A place could not be found for the new enterprise\n         however, and both returned to Buchanan. Stone became\n         disillusioned with the small scope of opportunities Buchanan\n         provided, and, with an ambition to \"become somebody\" in the\n         printing business, set out for Lynchburg. Landing in Lynchburg\n         in January 1883 he applied for work on the News and, after a\n         few days, secured a position as compositor. Here he remained\n         until March, achieving considerable reputation as a fast\n         compositor, yet not satisfied. Stone really longed for a\n         position in the printing business. John P. Bell offered Stone\n         a minor position in a branch office he had planned to open in\n         Roanoke. The position was, in most respects, inferior to the\n         one he had already held, but Stone gladly took it. He worked\n         hard, and showed superior business ability which impressed Mr.\n         Bell so much that when the manager of the business died in\n         1885 his position was offered to Stone. The position was not\n         offered without some misgivings because of Stone's youth (he\n         was only twenty-one) and his lack of business experience.\n         Stone, however, did such a good job as manager that Bell\n         realized that he had made the right choice. Stone eventually\n         gained control of the business and became president of the\n         company.","His position was secure enough that in 1890, he married\n         Miss Minnie Fishburn, daughter of J. A. Fishburn, a prominent\n         business man of Roanoke. The couple had one child, Mary\n         Katherine Stone.","Edward Stone's printing business grew in size and wealth.\n         By 1920 it was acknowledged by many to be the best-equipped\n         printing corporation in the south, and one of the largest as\n         well. He had many other business interests. He was president\n         of the Borderland Coal Corporation, president of the Virginia\n         Bridge and Iron Company, vice president and later president of\n         the Walker Foundry and Machine Company, chairman of the First\n         National Exchange Bank, and president of his primary business\n         and \"first love,\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company.","In March 1896 Stone was presented with a petition signed by\n         fourteen Roanoke business men requesting that he run for\n         mayor. Stone was very tempted, but a law stating that no one\n         in Roanoke public office would be permitted to do business\n         with the city stopped him. Stone felt that not being able to\n         do business with the city would be unfair to his stockholders.\n         Stone, a civic-minded individual, was chairman of the Roanoke\n         Community Fund in 1924, and of the City Planning and Zoning\n         Commission. He was also chairman of the war bond committee\n         during the First World War, and belonged to many societies and\n         organizations, including the American Institute of Graphic\n         Arts, the Florida State Historical Society, the Shenandoah\n         Club of Roanoke, the Country Club of Roanoke, the Roanoke Gun\n         Club, the Roanoke German Club, the Virginia Historical Society\n         (life member), the Better Printing Committee of the United\n         Typothetae of America, the Roanoke Rotary Club, the\n         International Benjamin Franklin Society of New York, and the\n         board of trustees of the Committee to Assist the Blind.","Edward Stone was also an extremely charitable man. He gave\n         large sums of money to the Roanoke Hospital and the Roanoke\n         Relief Fund, helped endow Roanoke College, gave heavily to the\n         Boy Scouts and the War Relief Clearing House, and donated\n         money to the Coal Miner's Relief Fund--even though it was\n         those very coal miners who were striking in Stone's coal\n         mines. He believed, however, that the miners' children should\n         not have to suffer for their parents' stand. The Stones also\n         gave money to support French children who had been left\n         fatherless as a result of the war. Stone, a Presbyterian,\n         donated $100.00 to the Jewish Relief Fund in 1917 to aid the\n         starving Jews in Russia displaced by the war, and also sent\n         funds to the Tuskeegee Institute.","Edward Stone's principal hobby was book collecting, and his\n         library was appraised at $50,000.00 in 1939. Among his\n         treasured pieces was a page from the original Gutenberg Bible.\n         Stone's library was considered to be the largest and\n         best-equipped privately-owned library in the state of\n         Virginia.","Stone's income fluctuated through the years. In 1917 and\n         1918, partly through stock sales, Stone declared an income of\n         $129,383.39 and $91,483.00 respectively, but 1926 was\n         considered an average year, and he declared an income of\n         $57,500.00.","Although Stone was a humanitarian and philanthropist, he\n         believed in keeping total control of his business and watched\n         his employees closely. He did not strongly oppose unionization\n         in his printing shop, but fully opposed unionization in his\n         coal mines, even using scabs to break strikes.","Stone suffered financial reversals during the Great\n         Depression but he reorganized his holdings to prevent a great\n         loss, and he weathered the Depression better than most\n         businessmen. His health had begun to fail by 1929, and by 1934\n         he was virtually bedridden. Finally, after a protracted\n         illness, Edward L. Stone died on June 3, 1938, at the age of\n         seventy-four.","A History of the Borderland Coal\n         CompanyThe Borderland Coal Company derived its name from its\n         dual location in Mingo County, West Virginia, and Pike County,\n         Kentucky, an area bordered by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy\n         River. The mines proper were located in Kentucky, and the coal\n         washers and other processing equipment were located in West\n         Virginia. The company operated from 1903 to 1934. While the\n         Borderland Coal Company was incorporated in 1903, the first\n         batch of coal was not shipped until September 1, 1904. In that\n         year J. S. Tipton, formerly the majority stockholder, resigned\n         his post as general manager of Borderland Coal and sold most\n         of his stock to Edward L. Stone. At that time Stone was\n         president of the Young Men's Investment Club which owned a\n         large number of shares in the Borderland Coal Company, and\n         thus, Stone controlled the club's activities.","The Borderland Coal Company initially owned approximately\n         1,000 acres of coal land. The company mined bituminous or soft\n         coal, and sold slack coal, used by railroads and industrial\n         concerns, egg coal, used in private furnaces, and nut coal,\n         the highest quality of bituminous coal, used in the kitchens\n         of private homes.","The Borderland Coal Company grew through the early 1900's.\n         In 1905, a second plant was opened called simply \"Operation\n         #2.\" The company declared its first stock dividend in November\n         1907, and began the construction of an electric plant,\n         cableway, conveyor, and tipple at a cost of $27,950.00. In\n         1908 a new coal washer was installed. By late 1914 the\n         Borderland Company held 3,000 acres of coal lands containing\n         an estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal. The profits of the\n         Borderland Coal Company increased from $1,250.00 in 1904 to\n         $11,243.77 in 1905, to $49,977.21 in 1908, and to $110,532.68\n         in 1910.","The amount of coal mined increased from 246 railroad\n         carloads in 1904 to 3,781 railroad carloads in 1910, and\n         expansion continued until the outbreak of World War I. The\n         coal paid a regular annual dividend averaging 15-30%. Prior to\n         1911, the Leckie Coal Company of Cleveland, Ohio, was the\n         exclusive agency for the sale of Borderland Coal. In that\n         year, however, the Borderland Coal Sales Company was formed,\n         with officers of the Borderland Coal Company doubling as\n         officials of the new company.","The town of Borderland, West Virginia, was a company town,\n         with company-owned homes, stores, school, and a church. The\n         rents in the company homes appear to have been within the\n         miners' incomes. The prices in the company stores, however,\n         were exorbitant. In fact, profits for the company store were\n         the second biggest money maker for the company in 1911,\n         totaling $11,811.78. The largest profit maker was coal, which\n         netted $91,741.07, while the sale of powder was ranked third,\n         totaling $3,165.86.","World War I created a great demand and a high prices for\n         coal, and the Borderland Coal Company prospered despite\n         difficulty finding railroad cars to transport its produce. In\n         1917, the company paid a record 60% dividend. On January 1,\n         1918, the company re-chartered itself in Virginia, and\n         patented the trademark and the name of the Borderland Coal\n         Company. The new capital stock was valued at nearly\n         $800,000.00. In November 1918 construction began on a new\n         tipple at a cost of $116,000.00. After the First World War,\n         the Borderland Coal Company experienced a decrease in both the\n         demand and the price of coal. The problem of labor and\n         unionization, however, ultimately caused the company's\n         demise.","Borderland Coal Company officials had been concerned over\n         the growth of coal mine unionization long before any major\n         trouble began. As early as 1915, L. E. Armentrout, the\n         corporation's Vice President and General Manager began using\n         \"secret service men\" to infiltrate the ranks of the miners and\n         report on any union activity. It is not known whether these\n         agents were U.S. government agents or private investigators,\n         but the latter is presumed. One of them reported on March 10,\n         1915:","I spent the entire day Monday with Emmett and Ed McKee,\n            Gus Cantrell, and Henry McKnight, all white Americans. We\n            played cards in an empty house on the Kentucky side. We had\n            a nice fire and everything was very comfortable. We would\n            play cards until we got tired, then we would stop\n            everything and talk unionism. Gus Cantrell said that he had\n            been talking to the boys for the last year, trying to get\n            them to organize a local of the U.M.W. of A. He said that\n            there was plenty of good, solid union men and that there\n            were also a lot of rotten scabs here. That he got into a\n            conversation with George McCormick, a white man, and\n            McCormick told him that he didn't believe in the union and\n            that he didn't want anything to do with the U.M.W. of A. .\n            . . I told Cantrell that I would be willing to help\n            organize the local. He said, \"Well, the work is picking up\n            now and we will wait until the boys get a good pay day,\n            then we will put this thing through.\"","Borderland Coal Company successfully resisted unionization\n         in the years before World War I. Wartime regulations prevented\n         strikes and hindered unionization, but after the war many\n         miners felt that it was time to air their grievances. Miners\n         disagreed over specific demands, but most felt that grave\n         inequalities existed in the rates for day workers established\n         by the Bituminous Coal Commission. The miners requested that a\n         conference be held but this request was turned down by the\n         Commission. Dissatisfaction became more pronounced, and during\n         the middle of July 1920 the miners in some of the subdistricts\n         walked out in an unauthorized strike. Shutdowns spread to\n         Indiana and Illinois. President Woodrow Wilson intervened and\n         told the miners that if they returned to work a grievance\n         committee would be formed. The miners returned to work August\n         10, 1920, and the committee was set up. Management and labor\n         agreed on a wage increase and all was quiet for a while.","West Virginia was in a unique position in that most of the\n         mines in that state were non-union. The Interstate Commerce\n         Commission fixed freight rates with a \"differential\" low\n         enough that West Virginia coal would not be eliminated by\n         production from other fields closer to their market. When the\n         market for coal was good, the differential also allowed the\n         union coal fields of Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois to pay\n         the union scale of wages and still sell their coal in\n         competition with the product of non-union fields, such as\n         those in West Virginia. When the demand for coal was low and\n         prices receded, however, the differential no longer aided the\n         union fields and they began to experience an adverse effect.\n         These conditions appeared after the First World War, and as a\n         result operators of unionized mines demanded the unionization\n         of the Wast Virginia coal fields. Thus the U.M.W. put pressure\n         on all non-union fields, including those of the Borderland\n         Coal Company. Borderland Coal Company had been fairly quiet\n         about unionization up to this time. On May 5, 1920, however,\n         L. E. Armentrout had issued the following notice:","TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE BORDERLAND\n            COAL COMPANY \n            Considerable efforts are being made to organize this\n            field and certain advantages are being held out to some men\n            showing the advisability of belonging to the Union. \n            This is a free country and this company is not going\n            to dictate to its employees whether they shall or shall not\n            join the Union, but for your information and for the\n            information of your friends, we wish to state positively\n            that no Union man will be employed by this company, and if\n            you find that it is to your interest to join the Union, we\n            would suggest that you arrange to move out and call at the\n            office and we will be glad to settle with you. This will\n            save you as well as the company further trouble, but we\n            sincerely hope that the pleasant relations between the\n            Company and the men will continue, and that each and every\n            one of you will continue in our employ. \n            Yours very truly, \n            L. E. Armentrout, \n            Manager","By late May, 1920 the situation had become acute.\n         Armentrout wrote to James P. Woods, president of the\n         Borderland Coal Company:","The organizers have just about put us out of business at\n            both plants . . . We have a good many men who have not\n            joined the Union, but these agitators are intimidating them\n            and have them so scared they won't attempt to try to work.\n            I will have a conference with the West Virginia attorneys\n            today to see if I cannot get a temporary injunction, or\n            probably prosecution for these intimidators. \n            We have three Deputy Sheriffs in Kentucky and expect\n            two more in today. We have both plants pretty well policed\n            at night, but still some of the intimidators slip through\n            the mines and get to some of the men. . . \n            Now that the primary is over, we believe that\n            Unionism will die out. . . . In fact, no Union cards have\n            been issued and for the past two or three days they have\n            not been able to locate the man who has been giving them\n            orders on the stores. Some of them (the fired Union Men)\n            have already remarked that they could not support their\n            families on $7.00 to $8.00 a week, and they hated to go to\n            bed at night when their children were crying for something\n            to eat.","Unionism, however, did not die out. Union \"agitators\" saw\n         to that no coal could be mined at the Borderland Company's\n         coal fields. In a letter to Stone dated July 6, 1920,\n         Armentrout stated that he was able to get \"very little action\n         from the Governor of West Virginia. . .I just finished talking\n         to Governor Morrow's office in Frankfort, Kentucky, and the\n         home guards will likely entrain today. They will likely have\n         machine guns so if that they get in according to promise, we\n         think that conditions will improve very rapidly.\"","The Borderland Coal Company kept its promise and\n         dispossessed hundreds of its employees. Fired from their jobs\n         and ousted from their homes, they were forced to live in\n         tents. In a union pamphlet entitled \"Borderland and Bullets\"\n         these men told of the horrible indignities forced on company\n         employees who joined the union. The purpose of the pamphlet\n         was to oppose the re-election of Colonel James P. Woods,\n         president of the Borderland Coal Company, to the U. S. House\n         of Representatives. Woods ran for re-election in the sixth\n         Virginia district claiming that he had been always fair to the\n         working man, and he won.","The situation at Borderland soon deteriorated into\n         violence. A pamphlet dated \"winter, 1920\" and entitled \n         Hell with the Lid Off in Mingo\n         County, West Virginia,gives an account of drunken\n         company guards wounding a number of workers by firing into\n         their tents. On May 12, 1920, Edward Stone, chairman of the\n         board of the Borderland Coal Company, had examined an\n         advertisement for the Thompson sub-machine gun but had decided\n         that \"the gun is not sufficient for our needs at the mine.\" On\n         May 16 Governor John J. Cornwell of West Virginia sent a\n         telegram to the War Department in Washington requesting that\n         Federal troops be sent to the Tug River District, where\n         Borderland Coal Company was located. There had been fighting\n         in the Tug River District for nearly four days. Secretary of\n         War John Weeks, basing his decision on reports from one of his\n         staff officers who had visited the area, decided that federal\n         troops were not needed. Four days later Governor Cornwell\n         declared martial law in West Virginia. Militiamen from both\n         Kentucky and West Virginia were involved in the fighting.","In the summer of 1921 the U. M. W. began its famous \"summer\n         march\" which precipitated guerilla warfare between the\n         pro-union and anti-union forces. On June 29, Governor Cornwell\n         ordered the citizens of West Virginia to take up arms and\n         defend themselves against the pro-unionists. The papers of the\n         Borderland Coal Company include lists of casualties written on\n         scrap paper, such as \"Stone Mountain, 5 Baldwin men and 4\n         citizens killed (one the mayor), 2 Feltz Bros. killed, 2\n         military companies there, 2 on the way.\" In April 1922 the\n         coal miners' grievances came to a head and they struck. They\n         demanded a continuation of the system of bargaining and\n         contract, including the \"checkoff,\" which is a list devised to\n         check on payment of union dues. In addition to demanding\n         stable wage rates, the miners demanded a six-hour day and a\n         five-day week. These increased hours would mean steady\n         employment, one of the miners' main goals.","The strike apparently took some pressure off the Borderland\n         Coal Company because after 1922 there is little or nothing in\n         the collection regarding unionization. Company officials had\n         managed to avoid unionization of their mines but had caused\n         the company much damage in the process. Bitter feelings\n         prevailed after the strike. A letter from L. E. Armentrout to\n         the Borderland Coal Company dated 1923 states:","Gentlemen, \n            My attention has just been called to the enclosed\n            blotter bearing the union label. It has been the policy of\n            this company for several years, in fact, ever since we have\n            been in business, not to recognize any Union whatever. We\n            spent, or lost, something like $300,000.00 fighting the\n            United Mine Workers here in 1920 and 1921, and also have\n            some injunctions against them. \n            For your information, please do not place any more\n            printing with any Union shop, and if you have any more of\n            these blotters, tear them up or dispose of them otherwise\n            as it is inconsistent with our policy, and we positively\n            will not stand for it.","While much of the collection regards labor struggles, there\n         is little material regarding immigrant labor although 40% of\n         the workers were immigrants. West Virginia was a sparsely\n         populated state at this time, and immigrants were needed to\n         supplement the labor in their mines. The first constitution of\n         the state provided for the appointment of an immigration\n         officer whose duties were to advertise the attractions of West\n         Virginia throughout Europe and make arrangements with\n         industries to supply transportation for foreign workmen. Of\n         the 80,877 workers employed in the West Virginia coal mines in\n         1915, 49,753 were American-born (37,918 white and 11,835\n         black) and 31,124 were foreign-born. Italians made up the\n         largest percentage of the immigrant labor force, about one\n         third of all foreigners employed in the mines while Hungarians\n         comprised the second-most prevalent nationality, approximately\n         one-sixth of the foreign born total.","The Borderland Coal Company never fully recovered from the\n         trouble that paralyzed its mines in 1920. The 1920's were a\n         very depressed period for the mining industry in general and\n         the depression of 1929 brought prices to an all time low. Coal\n         production fell precipitously from 1927-1933 although there\n         seemed to be a slight upturn that year. In 1927, L. E.\n         Armentrout resigned from the company and a year later the\n         Borderland Coal Sales Company was dissolved due to lack of\n         business. The Norfolk and Chesapeake Coal Company became\n         exclusive agents for the sale of Borderland coal. At a meeting\n         of the Borderland Coal Company's board of directors in 1929,\n         it was stated that since the market for coal was so poor, it\n         hardly paid to keep the mines going. The Borderland Coal\n         Company mines were only worked four days during the entire\n         month of May 1932. In a letter from Edward L. Stone to a\n         Borderland Coal Company creditor, Stone wrote that as the\n         Borderland Coal Company did not have the money to pay its\n         debts, all creditors would have to wait for their money, and\n         that he hoped that he could avoid declaring the Borderland\n         Coal Company bankrupt. In 1934 Stone received a letter from a\n         stockholder consoling him for having to \"lose Borderland\n         Coal.\" Apparently the company was then out of business.","The demise of the Borderland Coal Company was the result of\n         broad national trends; the product of their mines was of high\n         quality, and in good supply. The problem of labor and\n         unionization paralyzed the Borderland Coal Company. Lack of\n         production in the mines meant that the Borderland Coal Company\n         could not pay dividends which affected their stockholders. The\n         bad mining conditions, a lack of demand for coal and low\n         market prices made it impossible for the Borderland Coal\n         Company to recover. The return of the coal-rich region of\n         Alsace-Lorraine to France meant that our allies no longer\n         needed American coal. Domestic demand increased, but it did\n         not compensate for decreased industrial use. The switch to\n         alternative forms of energy such as oil, also damaged the coal\n         industry. Although prosperity returned to the rest of the\n         country, the coal industry never totally recovered, and the\n         Borderland Coal Company was one of the victims.","Officers of the Borderland Coal Company: Edward Lee Stone\n         --President ca. 1907-1919, Chairman of the Board 1919-ca.\n         1934; James P. Woods (attorney at law --U. S. Representative,\n         6th Virginia District) --Vice President ca. 1905-1922,\n         President 1922-1932; L. E. Armentrout --Manager ca. 1905-1915,\n         Vice President and Manager ca. 1915-1927; Ernest B. Fishburn\n         --Secretary-Treasurer ca. 1905-1930","Officers of the Borderland Coal Sales Company: L. E.\n         Armentrout --President; Edward Lee Stone --Vice President;\n         James P. Woods --second Vice President; R. N. Osborne,\n         Jr.--Secretary (discharged in 1924); W. W.\n         Austin--Secretary.","A History of the Stone Printing and\n         Manufacturing CompanyThe Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia, was established in 1883 as the Bell Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company. John P. Bell of Lynchburg served as\n         president, and Samuel J. Fields of Abington, Virginia, served\n         as manager. Edward L. Stone, the eventual chairman of the\n         board, was then employed as a journeyman printer and pressman.\n         In 1885, Stone succeeded Fields as the company's manager, and\n         his brother, Albert A. Stone, joined the business.","At this time the company occupied a small site on Commerce\n         Street in Roanoke, an area about twenty by twenty-five feet.\n         In 1889 the plant was seriously damaged by fire, and within a\n         few months, the company moved to larger quarters on the second\n         and third floors of the Gale Building on Jefferson Street.\n         Shortly thereafter, the controlling interest was purchased by\n         Edward L. Stone, with the remainder of the stock being\n         purchased by J. B. Fishburn and Albert A. Stone.","In 1892, the name of the company was changed to the Stone\n         Printing and Manufacturing Company, and the company occupied a\n         new, three-story building at 116 North Jefferson Street. In\n         1896, a duplicate building was added on the north side; in a\n         few years another addition was placed at the rear. The company\n         built another addition in 1902 but five years later the old\n         structure was torn down and a new two-stories building, 210 x\n         110 feet, was completed. The new structure gave the Stone\n         Printing Company 50,000 square feet of space, which is about\n         100 times the floor space originally occupied on Commerce\n         Street. The company today occupies the same site on Jefferson\n         Street.","In 1883 the capital stock of the company was $5,000.00, and\n         in 1900, it was increased to $50,000.00. In 1910 the capital\n         stock had grown to $350,000.00. All of the stock increases\n         were taken, with one exception, by the original stockholders.\n         Sales grew from $84,371.00 in 1900 to $179,433.78 in 1905, and\n         from $253,781.15 in 1909 to a high of $608,174.36 in 1920.","Stone had considered selling his printing company to a\n         British syndicate in 1912. He felt, however, that business was\n         good and getting better and eventually decided to retain\n         control. By 1920 the Stone Printing Company had customers in\n         half the states in the union and in some foreign countries.\n         Between 1920 and 1929, however, sales showed a steady decline.\n         In 1929 they fell to $399,701.43 and declined throughout the\n         depression.","The Stone Printing Company's most important business came\n         from railroads as the company printed tariff and rate\n         schedules as well as tickets. Since the railroad rates changed\n         rapidly during the early 1900's, railroad printing was very\n         lucrative. The principal railroad customer and in fact, the\n         largest customer, of the Stone Printing Company was the\n         Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1910 the Norfolk and Western\n         Railroad accounted for $85,652.60 in sales. Combined with the\n         sales to other railroads in 1910, the total of railroad sales\n         was approximately $193,000.00 of a total of $339,678.92 --well\n         over half of the total sales of the Stone Printing\n         Company.","Commercial printing comprised the second largest source of\n         the Stone Printing Company's business, accounting for\n         $135,110.32 of a total $608,174.36 in 1920. The fourth largest\n         amount of business, after the Norfolk and Western Railway,\n         other railroads, and commercial printing, was school and\n         college printing. The Stone Printing Company printed the\n         yearbooks for the University of Virginia, the Georgia\n         Institute of Technology, the University of Mississippi,\n         Randolph-Macon College, Hollins College, Virginia Polytechnic\n         Institute, and others.","The profit margin in printing often was small, and thus\n         costs had to be carefully controlled. Edward L. Stone was a\n         commissioner of the American Printers Cost Commission which\n         kept a close watch on printing costs and tried to keep them\n         down. Another serious problem that bothered Stone Printing\n         Company was unionization. As most Roanoke printing shops,\n         Stone Printing Company was an open shop where either union or\n         non-union people could be employed. The company's officers did\n         not penalize or prevent workers from joining the union. The\n         International Typographical Union, however, put pressure on\n         Edward Stone to turn his establishment into a closed shop,\n         that is, a shop that would hire only union members, pay union\n         wages, and abide by union rules. Paying union wages did not\n         trouble Stone because he already paid more than the union\n         scale in most cases. For example, in 1905 when the union scale\n         was $13.50 per week, Stone pointed out that while two of his\n         employees received less and one received the union wage, over\n         forty workers received between $15.00 and $25.00 per week.\n         Stone felt it folly to pay all workers the same because, he\n         said, \"some are so much better than others.\"","Edward Stone's paternalistic attitude toward his employees\n         is reflected in a collection of letters exchanged with his\n         workers. Forced to fire an employee who lied about being able\n         to work on a printing press, Stone lent him the money to go to\n         printing school, and re-hired him when he had learned the\n         trade. Another worker left the company without notice, heading\n         home to Lexington, Virginia. When the employee needed money to\n         return to Roanoke, Stone lent it to him with the understanding\n         that the employee would never again leave without asking\n         Stone's permission. Another employee left Stone without notice\n         to work for another printing firm, but when the employee\n         wanted his old job back, Stone gave it to him. Stone\n         frequently lent money to his employees, and did not press them\n         for repayment.","Many of the union's rules, however bothered Stone. Among\n         the ones he objected to were (1) in all cases when it became\n         necessary to reduce the working force of an office, the last\n         person hired should be the first dropped; (2) in machine\n         composition, all work must be time work and no piece work\n         should be allowed; (3) no member of the International\n         Typographical Union should engage in a speed contest either by\n         hand composition or on machines, and violation of this rule\n         was to be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00, or by\n         suspension; (4) an eight hour day (Stone Printing had a 9 to\n         9-1/2 hour day); and (5) no one holding active membership in a\n         local union should sign any individual or private contract\n         with any employer, agreeing to work for any stated time,\n         length, or conditions as the union alone was to have the power\n         to contract for conditions, wages, and hours. This fifth\n         stipulation bothered Stone the most for he firmly believed\n         that an employee should perform whatever duty Stone demanded\n         of him.","On November 20, 1907, there was a union strike in Roanoke.\n         The union men employed by the Stone Printing Company walked\n         out, and the union formed a picket line in front of the Stone\n         Printing Company. Stone wrote to Joel Cuthin, Mayor of\n         Roanoke: \"We have never been opposed to the union, but we have\n         objected to having them run our business, unless they acquired\n         it by ownership.\" The union put pressure on the Stone Printing\n         Company. A memo to Edward Stone from Albert Stone dated 1915\n         told of some Stone Printing Company material being returned by\n         certain Roanoke merchants because they did not bear the union\n         label. The amount of material returned, however, was very\n         small. The union pressure placed on Stone was generally\n         peaceful and there was no violence or destruction. After the\n         unsuccessful strike, Stone took back all of his union men.","After 1920 the company's sales and profits declined. In\n         1927, Albert Stone, who had assumed the presidency of the\n         company, commissioned Ernst and Ernst, financial analysts, to\n         examine the operation of Stone Printing and make\n         recommendations for improving business. The analysts found\n         Stone Printing to be an innovative company which sought and\n         found new markets such as school and college printing and the\n         printing of calendars, and which had sound leadership. Ernst\n         and Ernst felt that it was a change in economic conditions,\n         not the company itself, that caused the company's problems.\n         Competition had changed and grown in intensity by 1920, making\n         the ability to sell most important. The analysts recommended\n         the creation of a sales department coupled with more\n         aggressive selling techniques.","Later, Albert Stone, Jr., Edward Stone's nephew, claimed\n         that it was the reluctance of the Stone Printing Company to\n         cut prices during the depression of 1919-1922 that caused the\n         company's problems. He claimed that by the time the company\n         did cut its prices, Stone Printing had lost many of its most\n         valued customers, and suggested a closer watch of costs\n         coupled with an expansion of the calendar line. Although these\n         suggestions were followed, business did not improve.","When the Great Depression hit in 1929, business worsened.\n         Loyal customers and a solid financial base kept the Stone\n         Printing Company from bankruptcy. Edward Stone's health was\n         failing by 1929, and most of the company's affairs were passed\n         on to his brother Albert. In a letter from Edward Stone to the\n         board of directors in 1930, he wrote: \n         the years operations to date, with vastly improved\n            selling efforts, has only brought us the same volume of\n            business that we had last year but the increased\n            organization expense, incident to this extra selling\n            effort, and the extraordinary competition in the matter of\n            price, has prevented us from obtaining prices that we\n            should really obtain for our products.Edward Stone recommended a reduction in salaries\n         across the board from the president on down, and layoffs of\n         certain personnel.","When Franklin D. Roosevelt first initiated his New Deal\n         program in 1933, Edward Stone was apprehensive. In a letter\n         dated July 26, 1933, he wrote: \n         We would like the best in the world to go along with the\n            National Industrial Recovery Act, and be able to wire\n            President Roosevelt an affirmative reply in connection with\n            the agreement addressed \"To Every Employer.\" \n            But to do so, with my modest knowledge of economics,\n            would mean arbitrary action on our part, with a \"blind\n            faith\" that we do not possess. \n            If we still further reduce the working hours to 35\n            per week (as the New Deal suggested) the increased cost of\n            production reaches the geometric progression stage, with\n            the result that our losses on current contracts, which we\n            see no way of passing along to our customers until we would\n            actually see no way of meeting our payroll or meeting our\n            bills, would mean disaster. \n            Listening in over the radio last night I understand\n            that 5,000 or more telegrams had been received by the\n            President indicating unconditional acceptance of the\n            Agreement. It is quite possible that we should do likewise,\n            regardless, just as we offered ourselves, body and\n            resources, in wartime. \n            I am giving expression to these thoughts even though\n            I feel the \"patriotic\" thing for us to do may be to go\n            ahead, \"blindly,\" and in spite of our objections or reasons\n            for not doing so, and sign the agreement. \n            Very Sincerely, \n            Edward L. Stone \n            Chairman of the BoardClearly, Stone expected no miracles, but he went\n         along with the N.I.R.A. and generally supported Roosevelt.\n         There are references to increasing business by 1937.\n         Correspondence ends the following year with Edward Stone's\n         death. The Stone Printing Company, however, is in business to\n         this very day."],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eEdward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers,\n            Accession #382, Special Collections, University of Virginia\n            Library, Charlottesville, Va.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"prefercite_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers,\n            Accession #382, Special Collections, University of Virginia\n            Library, Charlottesville, Va."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThese papers fill 455 special four-inch Hollinger storage\n         boxes (ca. 150 linear feet) and span the years 1895-1937.\n         There are three major series: Edward L. Stone's papers re his\n         personal life and diversified business, professional, and\n         civic concerns; papers concerned with his principal business,\n         the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia; and those papers concerned with the Borderland Coal\n         Company of West Virginia and Kentucky of which Stone was the\n         principal officer for many years. Because these series\n         basically are composed of Stone's personal papers, and because\n         there are interrelationships between material in one series\n         and that in another, the series have been maintained in the\n         boxes in the order in which they were found.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe papers are rich in material for many types of studies.\n         Because Stone's major concern was his printing business, there\n         is a great amount of material about that business, its labor\n         problems, economic problems, its professional associations,\n         relationships with its customers --especially the railroads\n         --and so on. Because Mr. Stone collected medieval manuscripts\n         and examples of fine printing that formed a great private\n         library, there is, in his personal papers, a good deal of\n         correspondence and material about this special interest. His\n         personal papers also contain considerable material about his\n         diversified business and civic interests. And the records of\n         the Borderland Coal Company--which Mr. Stone operated either\n         as president or as chairman of the board for twenty-seven\n         years--are rich in information concerning this vital industry,\n         its periods of economic success and decline, its relationships\n         with the railroads that moved its products, and its labor\n         problems.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content Information"],"scopecontent_tesim":["These papers fill 455 special four-inch Hollinger storage\n         boxes (ca. 150 linear feet) and span the years 1895-1937.\n         There are three major series: Edward L. Stone's papers re his\n         personal life and diversified business, professional, and\n         civic concerns; papers concerned with his principal business,\n         the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia; and those papers concerned with the Borderland Coal\n         Company of West Virginia and Kentucky of which Stone was the\n         principal officer for many years. Because these series\n         basically are composed of Stone's personal papers, and because\n         there are interrelationships between material in one series\n         and that in another, the series have been maintained in the\n         boxes in the order in which they were found.","The papers are rich in material for many types of studies.\n         Because Stone's major concern was his printing business, there\n         is a great amount of material about that business, its labor\n         problems, economic problems, its professional associations,\n         relationships with its customers --especially the railroads\n         --and so on. Because Mr. Stone collected medieval manuscripts\n         and examples of fine printing that formed a great private\n         library, there is, in his personal papers, a good deal of\n         correspondence and material about this special interest. His\n         personal papers also contain considerable material about his\n         diversified business and civic interests. And the records of\n         the Borderland Coal Company--which Mr. Stone operated either\n         as president or as chairman of the board for twenty-seven\n         years--are rich in information concerning this vital industry,\n         its periods of economic success and decline, its relationships\n         with the railroads that moved its products, and its labor\n         problems."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSee the \n            \u003cextref type=\"simple\" href=\"https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/use-of-materials\"\u003e\n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.\u003c/extref\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Use Restrictions"],"userestrict_tesim":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":2216,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:56:08.243Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00663_c03_c158"}},{"id":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01_c536","type":"File","attributes":{"title":"Union Mercantile Company, including accounts, 1907/1912","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01_c536#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01_c536","ref_ssm":["viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01_c536"],"id":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01_c536","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617","_root_":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01","parent_ssi":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01","parent_ssim":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969","Strode attorney case files","Legal case files"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_repositories_3_resources_617","viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01","viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01"],"title_filing_ssi":"Union Mercantile Company, including accounts","title_ssm":["Union Mercantile Company, including accounts"],"title_tesim":["Union Mercantile Company, including accounts"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Union Mercantile Company, including accounts, 1907/1912"],"text":["Union Mercantile Company, including accounts, 1907/1912","Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969","Strode attorney case files","Legal case files","box 63","folder 9-11"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969","Strode attorney case files","Legal case files"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969","Strode attorney case files","Legal case files"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1907/1912"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["1907-1912"],"level_ssm":["File"],"level_ssim":["File"],"component_level_isim":[3],"sort_isi":538,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969"],"extent_ssm":["3 folder(s)"],"extent_tesim":["3 folder(s)"],"containers_ssim":["box 63","folder 9-11"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_terms_tesm":["This collection is open for research use."],"date_range_isim":[1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912],"_nest_path_":"/components#0/components#0/components#535","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:54:12.250Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617","ead_ssi":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617","_root_":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617","_nest_parent_":"viu_repositories_3_resources_617","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/oai/UVA/repositories_3_resources_617.xml","aspace_url_ssi":"https://archives.lib.virginia.edu/ark:/59853/534","title_filing_ssi":"Strode, Aubrey E., papers","title_ssm":["Aubrey E. Strode papers"],"title_tesim":["Aubrey E. Strode papers"],"unitdate_ssm":["1861-1969"],"unitdate_inclusive_ssm":["1861-1969"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1861/1969"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969"],"text":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969","Mss 3014","Archival Resource Key","/repositories/3/resources/617","women--education -- Virginia","Virginia -- Lynchburg","Virginia -- Amherst County","Eugenics -- Virginia","Involuntary sterilization","practice of law -- Virginia","United States. Army. Judge Advocate General","State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded -- Virginia","Democratic party -- Virginia","social problems","Thornhill Wagon Company","Tobacco Growers Co-operative Association","Kenmore High School--Amherst County (Va.)","lawyers","The Strode papers are arranged in seven series. Series one consists of Strode's attorney case files with two subseries, a) legal case files and b) legal documents and small cases; series two contains the correspondence from Strode's legal practice and judgeship; the third series has family and personal correspondence; the fourth series contains topical and miscellany files; series five has financial papers; series six consists of bound volumes, notebooks, and memoranda books; the seventh and last series is folio bound volumes.","Aubrey Ellis Strode, an American lawyer and Democratic politician, was born on October 2, 1873, at Amherst, Virginia, to Henry Aubrey Strode (1844-1898) and Mildred Powell Ellis Strode (1854-1898). Strode graduated from Kenmore High School at Amherst, and attended college at the University of Mississippi, Washington and Lee (1891-1892), and studied law at the University of Virginia, 1898-1899. Strode served as the principal of Ridgeway High School, Ridgeway, South Carolina, and Kenmore University High School, Amherst County, Virginia. The house \"Kenmore,\" was a colonial brick home built by Samuel Meredith Garland, whose granddaughter, Mildred Ellis, married Henry Aubrey Strode. Kenmore Farm became a preparatory high school operated by Henry Aubrey Strode between 1872 and 1889, and 1896-1899. Henry Aubrey Strode also served as the first president of Clemson University, 1890-1893. Aubrey Ellis Strode became principal and continued the school for a few years when his father fell ill.","Upon the death of his parents and being the eldest of the remaining family, Strode decided to study law, passed the bar examination and began practicing law in Amherst County and Lynchburg. His first law partner was Stickley Tucker (1879-1912), the oldest son of Cornelius S. Tucker and Sallie Stickley Tucker.  Aubrey E. Strode and John William Stickley Tucker signed articles of agreement on December 31, 1902, becoming partners in the practice of law, pertaining to the counties of Amherst and Nelson, Virginia under the name of Strode and Tucker, beginning January 1, 1903, with the general office at Amherst Court House. This practice was distinct from the law practice of Aubrey Strode in Lynchburg, Virginia. Later a memorandum of partnership agreement between Aubrey E. Strode and J. Easley Edmunds, Jr. took effect on March 1, 1923 under the firm name of Strode and Edmunds, with Strode as the senior partner.","Strode represented Amherst County and Nelson County in the Virginia Senate, from 1906-1912, and 1916-1920 and was the elector at large in Virginia in 1928. He was an active member of the Democratic Party in Virginia and a popular public speaker supporting Democratic candidates during elections. During World War I, he joined the United States Army serving with the Judge Advocate General Department of the Officers' Reserve Corps. Strode was commissioned April 23, 1918 as Major Judge Advocate and then promoted to Lieutenant Colonel Judge Advocate May 15, 1919. While in service, he was on active duty at Washington, D.C. from May 15, 1918 until January 1919, and from February through August 1919, served with the American Expeditionary Forces at Chaumont and Paris, France. Strode was discharged on August 12, 1919.","Perhaps best known as the lawyer who wrote the statute known as the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, Strode was also a long-time legal advisor to the Board of the State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded. The Colony was located in Madison Heights near Lynchburg, Virginia, and authorized by a bill written in 1906 by Aubrey Strode in collaboration with Dr. Albert Priddy, who served as the first superintendent, and Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent at Western State Hospital in Staunton, Virginia.","He argued the case of Buck v. Bell before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1927. Carrie Buck was a young woman from Charlottesville who Dr. Priddy petitioned to have sterilized. Priddy died during the litigation and his successor as superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble Minded, Dr. John Bell, took up the cause. The Supreme Court upheld the statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit \"for the protection and health of the state\" on May 2, 1927. The Supreme Court majority opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.","Strode was also a judge in the Corporation Court of Lynchburg (1933-1944). Strode died May 17, 1946 following his retirement from the bench due to poor health.","Biographical notes on Aubrey E. Strode siblings, wives and offspring is described in this subnote.","Aubrey E. Strode was the eldest child in his family and had seven siblings, six sisters and one brother. These include: Leslie Strode (1875- ?); Grace Strode (1877-1933); Ida Strode Berry (1878-1963) married Taylor Berry in 1898; Lucille Garland Strode (1882-1954) married William Ralph Smith in 1911; Edith Strode (1882-? ) married Dr. Howard Lilienthal; Mildred Strode Vandegrift (1886-1952); and Dr. Basil E. Strode (1888-1952), who served as a 1st Lt. in the Medical Corp in World War I.","Aubrey Ellis Strode married first Rebekah Davies Brown Strode (1874-1922) of Arlington, Virginia, on June 4, 1903, and second, Louisa Hubbard Strode Smith (1896-1989) of Forest, Virginia, in 1923.","Children of Aubrey E. Strode and Rebekah Brown Strode include: William Lewis Strode (1904-1906), Mildred Ellis Strode (1906-?) who married William Tucker Battle, Rebekah Elizabeth Strode (1913-1998) who married St. George Tucker Lee in 1936, Aubrey Ellis Strode, Jr. (1908-1970), and John Thompson Brown Strode (1910-1971). Hildreth Hubbard Strode (1926-2016) was the son of Aubrey E. Strode and Louis Hubbard Strode.","Aubrey E. Strode (1861-1969,88 cubic feet) was a Virginia lawyer, state senator and eugenics advocate who drafted the Virginia sterilization law and brought Buck vs. Bell to the Supreme Court. This collection consists of his personal and professional papers concerning his family, law practice, army service, political and legislative activities as a member of the Virginia Senate, the Virginia Democratic Party and the Progressive movement, and as a co-owner of the newspaper, The Amherst Progress. The bulk of the papers consists of the files of the law firms of Strode and Tucker and Strode and Edwards, containing correspondence, court records, trial transcripts, exhibits, estate settlements, debt collections, and various legal documents.","It also includes some speeches, bills, and correspondence with Edwin A. Alderman in the political and legislative papers in series four concerning the proposal to establish a coordinate Woman's College at the University of Virginia and the budgetary needs of the University of Virginia in the legislature. There are also letters in the family correspondence from his cousin, Dr. Rosalie Slaughter Morton (1876-1968), an American physician and surgeon, concerning her trips abroad and her autobiographical books.","There are three files in this collection entirely concerned with Strode's role in eugenics and sterilization in Virginia and they are: Carrie Buck v. Dr. J.H. Bell, 1925 June 1 (Box 9); State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded, 1908, 1920-1922 (Box 42); and Sterilization and Eugenics, 1924-1947 (Box 159). Much of the other material is scattered among his legal practice alphabetical correspondence files, under the last name of correspondents such as William F. Drewry, superintendent of Central State Hospital; Dr. Albert Priddy, first superintendent of the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded; his successor, Dr. John H. Bell; and Dr. J.S. DeJarnette, superintendent of Western State Hospital or chronologically in the political and legislative series.","Other topics with significant material in these papers include: the American Legion; The Amherst Progress (for additional information about the newspaper and the partnership with Tucker, see Strode's incoming legal practice correspondence files under \"T\" containing letters from Stickly Tucker and Strode's outgoing legal practice correspondence files under \"S\"); Judge Advocate General material; Kenmore High School, Amherst County, Virginia; the Lynchburg Jail; Marshal Lodge Memorial Hospital, where Strode served on the Board of Directors; and political and legislative material.","This collection is open for research use.","Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library","Hubbard family","Strode family","Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912","Smith, Louise Dexter Hubbard Strode, 1896-1989","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969"],"collection_ssim":["Aubrey E. Strode papers, 1861/1969"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["Mss 3014","Archival Resource Key","/repositories/3/resources/617"],"unitid_tesim":["Mss 3014","Archival Resource Key","/repositories/3/resources/617"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"geogname_ssm":["women--education -- Virginia","Virginia -- Lynchburg","Virginia -- Amherst County"],"geogname_ssim":["women--education -- Virginia","Virginia -- Lynchburg","Virginia -- Amherst County"],"places_ssim":["women--education -- Virginia","Virginia -- Lynchburg","Virginia -- Amherst County"],"creator_ssm":["Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912"],"creator_ssim":["Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912"],"creator_persname_ssim":["Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912","Smith, Louise Dexter Hubbard Strode, 1896-1989"],"creator_corpname_ssim":["Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library"],"creator_famname_ssim":["Hubbard family","Strode family"],"creators_ssim":["Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912","Smith, Louise Dexter Hubbard Strode, 1896-1989","Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library","Hubbard family","Strode family"],"access_terms_ssm":["This collection is open for research use."],"acqinfo_ssim":["The Aubrey E. Strode papers were originally were placed on loan to the University of Virginia library by his wife, Louisa Hubbard Strode Smith, on September 20, 1948, but were made a gift on June 15, 1971. Other smaller accessions were given to the Library to the original group of papers as gifts on January 25, 1961,June 14, 1971, and July 13, 1971."],"access_subjects_ssim":["Eugenics -- Virginia","Involuntary sterilization","practice of law -- Virginia","United States. Army. Judge Advocate General","State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded -- Virginia","Democratic party -- Virginia","social problems","Thornhill Wagon Company","Tobacco Growers Co-operative Association","Kenmore High School--Amherst County (Va.)","lawyers"],"access_subjects_ssm":["Eugenics -- Virginia","Involuntary sterilization","practice of law -- Virginia","United States. Army. Judge Advocate General","State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded -- Virginia","Democratic party -- Virginia","social problems","Thornhill Wagon Company","Tobacco Growers Co-operative Association","Kenmore High School--Amherst County (Va.)","lawyers"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"extent_ssm":["88 Cubic Feet 174 document boxes, 2 large oversize folders, and 2 small oversize folders, and 8 folio ledgers"],"extent_tesim":["88 Cubic Feet 174 document boxes, 2 large oversize folders, and 2 small oversize folders, and 8 folio ledgers"],"date_range_isim":[1861,1862,1863,1864,1865,1866,1867,1868,1869,1870,1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878,1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884,1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890,1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896,1897,1898,1899,1900,1901,1902,1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920,1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926,1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932,1933,1934,1935,1936,1937,1938,1939,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950,1951,1952,1953,1954,1955,1956,1957,1958,1959,1960,1961,1962,1963,1964,1965,1966,1967,1968,1969],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Strode papers are arranged in seven series. Series one consists of Strode's attorney case files with two subseries, a) legal case files and b) legal documents and small cases; series two contains the correspondence from Strode's legal practice and judgeship; the third series has family and personal correspondence; the fourth series contains topical and miscellany files; series five has financial papers; series six consists of bound volumes, notebooks, and memoranda books; the seventh and last series is folio bound volumes.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Arrangement"],"arrangement_tesim":["The Strode papers are arranged in seven series. Series one consists of Strode's attorney case files with two subseries, a) legal case files and b) legal documents and small cases; series two contains the correspondence from Strode's legal practice and judgeship; the third series has family and personal correspondence; the fourth series contains topical and miscellany files; series five has financial papers; series six consists of bound volumes, notebooks, and memoranda books; the seventh and last series is folio bound volumes."],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eAubrey Ellis Strode, an American lawyer and Democratic politician, was born on October 2, 1873, at Amherst, Virginia, to Henry Aubrey Strode (1844-1898) and Mildred Powell Ellis Strode (1854-1898). Strode graduated from Kenmore High School at Amherst, and attended college at the University of Mississippi, Washington and Lee (1891-1892), and studied law at the University of Virginia, 1898-1899. Strode served as the principal of Ridgeway High School, Ridgeway, South Carolina, and Kenmore University High School, Amherst County, Virginia. The house \"Kenmore,\" was a colonial brick home built by Samuel Meredith Garland, whose granddaughter, Mildred Ellis, married Henry Aubrey Strode. Kenmore Farm became a preparatory high school operated by Henry Aubrey Strode between 1872 and 1889, and 1896-1899. Henry Aubrey Strode also served as the first president of Clemson University, 1890-1893. Aubrey Ellis Strode became principal and continued the school for a few years when his father fell ill. \u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUpon the death of his parents and being the eldest of the remaining family, Strode decided to study law, passed the bar examination and began practicing law in Amherst County and Lynchburg. His first law partner was Stickley Tucker (1879-1912), the oldest son of Cornelius S. Tucker and Sallie Stickley Tucker.  Aubrey E. Strode and John William Stickley Tucker signed articles of agreement on December 31, 1902, becoming partners in the practice of law, pertaining to the counties of Amherst and Nelson, Virginia under the name of Strode and Tucker, beginning January 1, 1903, with the general office at Amherst Court House. This practice was distinct from the law practice of Aubrey Strode in Lynchburg, Virginia. Later a memorandum of partnership agreement between Aubrey E. Strode and J. Easley Edmunds, Jr. took effect on March 1, 1923 under the firm name of Strode and Edmunds, with Strode as the senior partner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStrode represented Amherst County and Nelson County in the Virginia Senate, from 1906-1912, and 1916-1920 and was the elector at large in Virginia in 1928. He was an active member of the Democratic Party in Virginia and a popular public speaker supporting Democratic candidates during elections. During World War I, he joined the United States Army serving with the Judge Advocate General Department of the Officers' Reserve Corps. Strode was commissioned April 23, 1918 as Major Judge Advocate and then promoted to Lieutenant Colonel Judge Advocate May 15, 1919. While in service, he was on active duty at Washington, D.C. from May 15, 1918 until January 1919, and from February through August 1919, served with the American Expeditionary Forces at Chaumont and Paris, France. Strode was discharged on August 12, 1919.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePerhaps best known as the lawyer who wrote the statute known as the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, Strode was also a long-time legal advisor to the Board of the State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded. The Colony was located in Madison Heights near Lynchburg, Virginia, and authorized by a bill written in 1906 by Aubrey Strode in collaboration with Dr. Albert Priddy, who served as the first superintendent, and Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent at Western State Hospital in Staunton, Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe argued the case of Buck v. Bell before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1927. Carrie Buck was a young woman from Charlottesville who Dr. Priddy petitioned to have sterilized. Priddy died during the litigation and his successor as superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble Minded, Dr. John Bell, took up the cause. The Supreme Court upheld the statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit \"for the protection and health of the state\" on May 2, 1927. The Supreme Court majority opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStrode was also a judge in the Corporation Court of Lynchburg (1933-1944). Strode died May 17, 1946 following his retirement from the bench due to poor health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBiographical notes on Aubrey E. Strode siblings, wives and offspring is described in this subnote.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAubrey E. Strode was the eldest child in his family and had seven siblings, six sisters and one brother. These include: Leslie Strode (1875- ?); Grace Strode (1877-1933); Ida Strode Berry (1878-1963) married Taylor Berry in 1898; Lucille Garland Strode (1882-1954) married William Ralph Smith in 1911; Edith Strode (1882-? ) married Dr. Howard Lilienthal; Mildred Strode Vandegrift (1886-1952); and Dr. Basil E. Strode (1888-1952), who served as a 1st Lt. in the Medical Corp in World War I.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAubrey Ellis Strode married first Rebekah Davies Brown Strode (1874-1922) of Arlington, Virginia, on June 4, 1903, and second, Louisa Hubbard Strode Smith (1896-1989) of Forest, Virginia, in 1923.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChildren of Aubrey E. Strode and Rebekah Brown Strode include: William Lewis Strode (1904-1906), Mildred Ellis Strode (1906-?) who married William Tucker Battle, Rebekah Elizabeth Strode (1913-1998) who married St. George Tucker Lee in 1936, Aubrey Ellis Strode, Jr. (1908-1970), and John Thompson Brown Strode (1910-1971). Hildreth Hubbard Strode (1926-2016) was the son of Aubrey E. Strode and Louis Hubbard Strode.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Biography"],"bioghist_tesim":["Aubrey Ellis Strode, an American lawyer and Democratic politician, was born on October 2, 1873, at Amherst, Virginia, to Henry Aubrey Strode (1844-1898) and Mildred Powell Ellis Strode (1854-1898). Strode graduated from Kenmore High School at Amherst, and attended college at the University of Mississippi, Washington and Lee (1891-1892), and studied law at the University of Virginia, 1898-1899. Strode served as the principal of Ridgeway High School, Ridgeway, South Carolina, and Kenmore University High School, Amherst County, Virginia. The house \"Kenmore,\" was a colonial brick home built by Samuel Meredith Garland, whose granddaughter, Mildred Ellis, married Henry Aubrey Strode. Kenmore Farm became a preparatory high school operated by Henry Aubrey Strode between 1872 and 1889, and 1896-1899. Henry Aubrey Strode also served as the first president of Clemson University, 1890-1893. Aubrey Ellis Strode became principal and continued the school for a few years when his father fell ill.","Upon the death of his parents and being the eldest of the remaining family, Strode decided to study law, passed the bar examination and began practicing law in Amherst County and Lynchburg. His first law partner was Stickley Tucker (1879-1912), the oldest son of Cornelius S. Tucker and Sallie Stickley Tucker.  Aubrey E. Strode and John William Stickley Tucker signed articles of agreement on December 31, 1902, becoming partners in the practice of law, pertaining to the counties of Amherst and Nelson, Virginia under the name of Strode and Tucker, beginning January 1, 1903, with the general office at Amherst Court House. This practice was distinct from the law practice of Aubrey Strode in Lynchburg, Virginia. Later a memorandum of partnership agreement between Aubrey E. Strode and J. Easley Edmunds, Jr. took effect on March 1, 1923 under the firm name of Strode and Edmunds, with Strode as the senior partner.","Strode represented Amherst County and Nelson County in the Virginia Senate, from 1906-1912, and 1916-1920 and was the elector at large in Virginia in 1928. He was an active member of the Democratic Party in Virginia and a popular public speaker supporting Democratic candidates during elections. During World War I, he joined the United States Army serving with the Judge Advocate General Department of the Officers' Reserve Corps. Strode was commissioned April 23, 1918 as Major Judge Advocate and then promoted to Lieutenant Colonel Judge Advocate May 15, 1919. While in service, he was on active duty at Washington, D.C. from May 15, 1918 until January 1919, and from February through August 1919, served with the American Expeditionary Forces at Chaumont and Paris, France. Strode was discharged on August 12, 1919.","Perhaps best known as the lawyer who wrote the statute known as the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, Strode was also a long-time legal advisor to the Board of the State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded. The Colony was located in Madison Heights near Lynchburg, Virginia, and authorized by a bill written in 1906 by Aubrey Strode in collaboration with Dr. Albert Priddy, who served as the first superintendent, and Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent at Western State Hospital in Staunton, Virginia.","He argued the case of Buck v. Bell before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1927. Carrie Buck was a young woman from Charlottesville who Dr. Priddy petitioned to have sterilized. Priddy died during the litigation and his successor as superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble Minded, Dr. John Bell, took up the cause. The Supreme Court upheld the statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit \"for the protection and health of the state\" on May 2, 1927. The Supreme Court majority opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.","Strode was also a judge in the Corporation Court of Lynchburg (1933-1944). Strode died May 17, 1946 following his retirement from the bench due to poor health.","Biographical notes on Aubrey E. Strode siblings, wives and offspring is described in this subnote.","Aubrey E. Strode was the eldest child in his family and had seven siblings, six sisters and one brother. These include: Leslie Strode (1875- ?); Grace Strode (1877-1933); Ida Strode Berry (1878-1963) married Taylor Berry in 1898; Lucille Garland Strode (1882-1954) married William Ralph Smith in 1911; Edith Strode (1882-? ) married Dr. Howard Lilienthal; Mildred Strode Vandegrift (1886-1952); and Dr. Basil E. Strode (1888-1952), who served as a 1st Lt. in the Medical Corp in World War I.","Aubrey Ellis Strode married first Rebekah Davies Brown Strode (1874-1922) of Arlington, Virginia, on June 4, 1903, and second, Louisa Hubbard Strode Smith (1896-1989) of Forest, Virginia, in 1923.","Children of Aubrey E. Strode and Rebekah Brown Strode include: William Lewis Strode (1904-1906), Mildred Ellis Strode (1906-?) who married William Tucker Battle, Rebekah Elizabeth Strode (1913-1998) who married St. George Tucker Lee in 1936, Aubrey Ellis Strode, Jr. (1908-1970), and John Thompson Brown Strode (1910-1971). Hildreth Hubbard Strode (1926-2016) was the son of Aubrey E. Strode and Louis Hubbard Strode."],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eMAA 3014, Aubrey E. Strode papers, Albert and Shirely Small Special Collections, University of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"prefercite_tesim":["MAA 3014, Aubrey E. Strode papers, Albert and Shirely Small Special Collections, University of Virginia."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eAubrey E. Strode (1861-1969,88 cubic feet) was a Virginia lawyer, state senator and eugenics advocate who drafted the Virginia sterilization law and brought Buck vs. Bell to the Supreme Court. This collection consists of his personal and professional papers concerning his family, law practice, army service, political and legislative activities as a member of the Virginia Senate, the Virginia Democratic Party and the Progressive movement, and as a co-owner of the newspaper, The Amherst Progress. The bulk of the papers consists of the files of the law firms of Strode and Tucker and Strode and Edwards, containing correspondence, court records, trial transcripts, exhibits, estate settlements, debt collections, and various legal documents. \u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIt also includes some speeches, bills, and correspondence with Edwin A. Alderman in the political and legislative papers in series four concerning the proposal to establish a coordinate Woman's College at the University of Virginia and the budgetary needs of the University of Virginia in the legislature. There are also letters in the family correspondence from his cousin, Dr. Rosalie Slaughter Morton (1876-1968), an American physician and surgeon, concerning her trips abroad and her autobiographical books. \u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThere are three files in this collection entirely concerned with Strode's role in eugenics and sterilization in Virginia and they are: Carrie Buck v. Dr. J.H. Bell, 1925 June 1 (Box 9); State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded, 1908, 1920-1922 (Box 42); and Sterilization and Eugenics, 1924-1947 (Box 159). Much of the other material is scattered among his legal practice alphabetical correspondence files, under the last name of correspondents such as William F. Drewry, superintendent of Central State Hospital; Dr. Albert Priddy, first superintendent of the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded; his successor, Dr. John H. Bell; and Dr. J.S. DeJarnette, superintendent of Western State Hospital or chronologically in the political and legislative series.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOther topics with significant material in these papers include: the American Legion; The Amherst Progress (for additional information about the newspaper and the partnership with Tucker, see Strode's incoming legal practice correspondence files under \"T\" containing letters from Stickly Tucker and Strode's outgoing legal practice correspondence files under \"S\"); Judge Advocate General material; Kenmore High School, Amherst County, Virginia; the Lynchburg Jail; Marshal Lodge Memorial Hospital, where Strode served on the Board of Directors; and political and legislative material. \u003c/p\u003e  "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Contents"],"scopecontent_tesim":["Aubrey E. Strode (1861-1969,88 cubic feet) was a Virginia lawyer, state senator and eugenics advocate who drafted the Virginia sterilization law and brought Buck vs. Bell to the Supreme Court. This collection consists of his personal and professional papers concerning his family, law practice, army service, political and legislative activities as a member of the Virginia Senate, the Virginia Democratic Party and the Progressive movement, and as a co-owner of the newspaper, The Amherst Progress. The bulk of the papers consists of the files of the law firms of Strode and Tucker and Strode and Edwards, containing correspondence, court records, trial transcripts, exhibits, estate settlements, debt collections, and various legal documents.","It also includes some speeches, bills, and correspondence with Edwin A. Alderman in the political and legislative papers in series four concerning the proposal to establish a coordinate Woman's College at the University of Virginia and the budgetary needs of the University of Virginia in the legislature. There are also letters in the family correspondence from his cousin, Dr. Rosalie Slaughter Morton (1876-1968), an American physician and surgeon, concerning her trips abroad and her autobiographical books.","There are three files in this collection entirely concerned with Strode's role in eugenics and sterilization in Virginia and they are: Carrie Buck v. Dr. J.H. Bell, 1925 June 1 (Box 9); State Colony for Epileptics and the Feeble-Minded, 1908, 1920-1922 (Box 42); and Sterilization and Eugenics, 1924-1947 (Box 159). Much of the other material is scattered among his legal practice alphabetical correspondence files, under the last name of correspondents such as William F. Drewry, superintendent of Central State Hospital; Dr. Albert Priddy, first superintendent of the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded; his successor, Dr. John H. Bell; and Dr. J.S. DeJarnette, superintendent of Western State Hospital or chronologically in the political and legislative series.","Other topics with significant material in these papers include: the American Legion; The Amherst Progress (for additional information about the newspaper and the partnership with Tucker, see Strode's incoming legal practice correspondence files under \"T\" containing letters from Stickly Tucker and Strode's outgoing legal practice correspondence files under \"S\"); Judge Advocate General material; Kenmore High School, Amherst County, Virginia; the Lynchburg Jail; Marshal Lodge Memorial Hospital, where Strode served on the Board of Directors; and political and legislative material."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThis collection is open for research use.\u003c/p\u003e  "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Conditions Governing Use"],"userestrict_tesim":["This collection is open for research use."],"corpname_ssim":["Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library"],"famname_ssim":["Hubbard family","Strode family"],"names_coll_ssim":["Hubbard family","Strode family","Smith, Louise Dexter Hubbard Strode, 1896-1989"],"persname_ssim":["Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912","Smith, Louise Dexter Hubbard Strode, 1896-1989"],"names_ssim":["Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library","Hubbard family","Strode family","Strode, Aubrey Ellis, 1873-1946","Tucker, John William Stickley, 1879-1912","Smith, Louise Dexter Hubbard Strode, 1896-1989"],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":889,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:54:12.250Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_repositories_3_resources_617_c01_c01_c536"}},{"id":"viu_viu00917_c02_c1591","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"United Engineering \u0026 Foundry Co., incl. purchasing agent - castings orders;\n prices, 1908/1913","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00917_c02_c1591#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_viu00917_c02_c1591","ref_ssm":["viu_viu00917_c02_c1591"],"id":"viu_viu00917_c02_c1591","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00917","_root_":"viu_viu00917","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00917_c02","parent_ssi":"viu_viu00917_c02","parent_ssim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927","Records"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_viu00917","viu_viu00917_c02"],"title_filing_ssi":"United Engineering \u0026 Foundry Co.,\n                  incl. purchasing agent - castings orders;\n                  prices","title_ssm":["United Engineering \u0026 Foundry Co., incl. purchasing agent - castings orders;\n prices"],"title_tesim":["United Engineering \u0026 Foundry Co., incl. purchasing agent - castings orders;\n prices"],"normalized_title_ssm":["United Engineering \u0026 Foundry Co., incl. purchasing agent - castings orders;\n prices, 1908/1913"],"text":["United Engineering \u0026 Foundry Co., incl. purchasing agent - castings orders;\n prices, 1908/1913","Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927","Records","box Box 235"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927","Records"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927","Records"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1908/1913"],"unitdate_other_ssim":["1908 July -1913 March"],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":1775,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927"],"containers_ssim":["box Box 235"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"date_range_isim":[1908,1909,1910,1911,1912,1913],"_nest_path_":"/components#1/components#1590","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:56:23.128Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_viu00917","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00917","_root_":"viu_viu00917","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00917","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/uva-sc/viu00917.xml","title_ssm":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927"],"title_tesim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927"],"text":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927","662","95 linear feer + 1200\n         volumes","Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections.","The word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the container list\n         that follows will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.","As noted under \"Provenance,\" the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were subjected to a number of moves; when processing\n         began in the fall of 1976, no discernible scheme of\n         organization could be determined.","The first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to\n         the dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of\n         useful organization. Next, the spine titles of the original\n         letter boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the\n         gray cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory\n         attic), but they, too, proved useless.","These steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors\n         on the collection, the new student processors were\n         instructed to begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents\n         of the collection. During this inventory, old folders were\n         replaced with acid-free ones, and the original folder\n         headings were copied onto the new ones. Some removal of\n         paper clips was accomplished, and the materials were\n         reviewed and notes taken for the guide.","Some consolidation of materials was accomplished, and in\n         other cases, materials were moved. This work has created\n         some problems in the numbering of the boxes. Thus, the\n         researchers will find boxes marked \"6A\" and \"23C\"; he will\n         also discover that certain box numbers have been entirely\n         omitted. As the box numbers exist only to aid in the\n         location of material, it was not felt that the unusual\n         numbers and the omissions would cause problems in working\n         with the papers.","A certain amount of movement of boxes within the\n         collection, and of materials among boxes, probably would\n         ease use of it. But what processing was accomplished on\n         this project took far longer than had been anticipated, and\n         there was no time in the late spring of 1978, when the\n         processors had to complete their work with the project, to\n         undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they stand in\n         the order in which we found them at the beginning of the\n         project.","The Low Moor Iron Company, the first producer of pig\n         iron in Virginia according to the company's claims, was a\n         self-contained manufacturing unit producing from its own\n         mines the coal, limestone, and iron ore needed for its iron\n         production. Located in Low Moor near Clifton Forge in\n         Alleghany County in western Virginia, an area rich in\n         mineral deposits, the company was in operation from\n         1872-1930, producing only pig iron; it never attempted to\n         produce finished iron products.","Coal came to the Low Moor furnaces from the Kay Moor\n         Mines at Kay Moor, West Virginia, about thirty miles from\n         Low Moor; limestone was produced from the Low Moor\n         limestone quarries; and iron ore came from the Fenwick,\n         Dolly Ann, Jordan, Rich Patch, Low Moor, and Longdale\n         Mines, most of them within twenty miles of Low Moor at\n         Covington or Clifton Forge.","The towns of Low Moor and Kay Moor were company towns in\n         every respect. Workers lived in company-owned houses,\n         bought food in company stores, worshiped at the company\n         church, saw movies in the company theater, were treated in\n         the company hospital, and were buried in the company\n         cemetery. Workers received part of their pay in scrip that\n         they exchanged for goods and services. According to a\n         statement from the Kay Moor Mines dated November 1904, Kay\n         Moor then employed 338 people, paid them an average wage of\n         $36.26 per month, and issued half of their pay in scrip.\n         Kay Moor had four stores; Low Moor had seven or eight. All\n         of these stores carried large inventories which are\n         detailed in the collection. These inventories are valuable\n         to anyone interested in determining the wants and needs of\n         a coal miner and his family.","In the late 1910's and 1920's Kay Moor had a company\n         theater called the Azure Theater which seated about 300\n         people. There were also plans for a company-owned social\n         center, to have pool tables, a soda fountain, and\n         provisions for dancing and skating. The company was in\n         tough economic straits by the 1920's, however, and there is\n         no evidence that the social center was built. The town of\n         Low Moor was so completely under the company's influence\n         that one of Low Moor Iron Company's assistant managers\n         served as the town sheriff. He often foreclosed on people\n         who did not pay their debts, and drove troublesome people\n         \"out of town on a rail\" as he put it.","The Low Moor Iron Company's fortunes fluctuated during\n         the various business cycles between the years 1880-1930.\n         Low Moor was one of the larger pig iron producers in\n         Virginia, but Virginia pig iron production was not\n         important nationally. Low Moor officials sometimes sold\n         their product themselves, but more often they used agents,\n         the prevalent method at the time. Low Moor Iron Company\n         used a variety of agents through the 1900's. James F. Bryan\n         acted as the exclusive agent for the sale of Kay Moor Coal\n         from September 21, 1903 to September, 1905. From about 1890\n         until about 1910 Dalton Nash and Company were the exclusive\n         eastern agents of Low Moor Iron. After that time the\n         exclusive agency went to Philips Isham and Company located\n         in New York. From about 1890 the western agency was handled\n         chiefly by Thomas Mack and Company. After 1902 Thomas Mack\n         and Company underwent a name change, becoming Walter\n         Wallingford and Company, with offices located in\n         Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Chicago.","Perhaps the Low Moor Iron Company's biggest problem over\n         the years was obtaining railroad cars for the\n         transportation of its finished product. Low Moor Iron\n         Company had its own cars for transporting its raw materials\n         among its various facilities. For the long haul necessary\n         for its finished goods, however, it depended upon the\n         services of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, and the\n         relationship was not always a happy one. The Low Moor\n         Company complained many times to the C \u0026 O Railroad\n         about the discrepancies between long-and shorthaul freight\n         rates. Low Moor also had trouble getting cars from the C\n         \u0026 O. In a letter to one of Low Moor Company's agents\n         from an irate customer dated 1898, the customer wrote: \"We\n         wrote you on Saturday and endeavored to question upon your\n         mind the necessity of taking care of us with Low Moor iron.\n         We are on our uppers--there is not a pound of Low Moor iron\n         in the yard. Of the one hundred tons ordered some time ago,\n         not one pound of it has been received.\" This was, according\n         to the Low Moor Iron Company, because they could not get\n         the railroad cars. In a letter from Thomas Mack and Company\n         dated November 26, 1901, to General Manager E. C. Means:\n         \"We are hopeful that the car supply will get better because\n         of the number of orders you have of ours for prompt\n         shipment. Our customers are complaining that they are not\n         getting the iron fast enough. . . . We hope that the\n         railroad will be able to supply you with empty cars.\" In\n         another letter dated 1916 to John B. Guernsey, then acting\n         General Manager of the Low Moor Iron Company, \"We were not\n         supplied with coke cars for today's loading, and\n         consequently we have been practically down of Kay Moor\n         ovens all day.\"","The problem of procuring labor also plagued the Low Moor\n         Company. The company sometimes tried to hire immigrant\n         laborers and send the men directly to Low Moor from New\n         York City. There were problems with this, as is explained\n         in the following letter dated April 7, 1906: \n         To Mr. George Wickes \n            Supt. of Mines \n            Kay Moor, Virginia \n            Dear George, \n            Tony arrived with twenty one men last night. One\n            got away in Jersey two in Washington D.C., four in\n            Charlottesville. Some of the men are very good looking,\n            but taken as a whole they are the worst lot I have ever\n            seen: Irish, German-Jews, and Italians. . . . Our New\n            York transportations to this place have never been a\n            success.Signed, \n            Ed D. Wickes Supt. of MinesLow Moor usually employed labor agencies, one\n         of which was Atwood's Employment Agency. Often the Low Moor\n         Company would request certain nationalities, believing them\n         to be better workers than others. Sometimes the company\n         would request a gang of twenty made up of \"ten Greeks and\n         ten Italians.\" Many of the immigrants fled Low Moor and Kay\n         Moor when they learned that they would have to work\n         underground. There is a fair amount of material on\n         immigrant labor and its procurement in the collection, and\n         it is noted in the description of the box contents.","Low Moor Iron Company not only had trouble procuring\n         labor, but it also had trouble with labor already employed\n         in the mines and at the factory. Labor dissension and\n         strikes troubled the Kay Moor Mines through the 1900's. The\n         great coal strike of 1902 hurt the Low Moor Company's coal\n         mining operation, but by 1903 things were \"nearly back to\n         normal\" according to the mine superintendent. There was\n         still trouble at Kay Moor Mines, however. In a letter dated\n         April 26, 1906, to the treasurer of Low Moor Company, the\n         manager of the mines wrote about the trouble in \"trying to\n         get the agitators out.\" The mines were seventy-five men\n         short of the total labor force needed because many of the\n         coal miners returned to their farms during the spring.\n         There were rumblings of another strike at Kay Moor, the\n         result of which was to be a fourteen percent increase in\n         wages for the Kay Moor Mine workers via an agreement with\n         the United Mine Workers Union in December.","The Low Moor Iron Company grew along with the rest of\n         Virginia industry in the 1890's and 1900's. Starting with\n         only one furnace in the 1870's, it opened a second furnace\n         at Covington, Virginia, in 1891. In 1911 it opened a third\n         furnace, this time at Low Moor. Covington, with its heavy\n         industry, soon became known as the \"Pittsburgh of\n         Virginia.\" Virginia's pig iron production rose from 9,000\n         short tons in 1870 to 544,034 long tons in 1903. Judging\n         from the Low Moor Company's correspondence, the most\n         prosperous period for the company fell between the years\n         1895-1907. In the years between 1907-1917 problems befell\n         the Virginia pig iron industry. In a letter from William W.\n         Hearns, the president of the Virginia based Princess Pig\n         Iron Company, to U. S. Senator Thomas S. Martin, Hearns\n         writes of the problems of the Virginia pig iron industry:\n         \"There is not a blast furnace in Virginia that is making\n         any money from the manufacture of pig iron. The cause of\n         this is there is an exceedingly low price on pig iron in\n         the country at the present time, and the increased cost of\n         manufacturing is due to the increase in wages in all\n         lines.\" With the outbreak of World War I prices rose\n         dramatically, but in a market report to Low Moor dated\n         November 11, 1916, it was stated that: \"In spite of the\n         high prices, it is not a picnic to be in the iron industry.\n         There is a desperate shortage of cars and equipment in the\n         coal and iron districts, and in consequence there are\n         troubles of all kinds to get materials shipped. The\n         situation has grown serious.\"","When America became involved in the First World War, it\n         meant a boost for the Low Moor Iron Company. The government\n         helped it procure labor, and even helped it repair its\n         furnaces. The problem of supplies and cars for their\n         shipments, however, plagued the company more than ever. It\n         had a good deal of trouble getting all the raw materials it\n         needed due chiefly to the \"tight ship\" run by Harry F.\n         Byrd, Sr., U.S. Fuel Administrator for Virginia. After the\n         war very serious problems began to trouble the Low Moor\n         Iron Company. The demand for iron fell precipitously and a\n         short but severe depression ensued from 1919-1922. The\n         depression seemed to hit the iron industry especially hard.\n         Prices took a huge drop due to the lack of demand, and many\n         pre-war contracts had to be revalued. To compound the\n         company's problems, the Kay Moor Mines went on strike in\n         1919. This strike was quickly settled, as the market for\n         coal was so good that the Low Moor Company ceased taking\n         orders temporarily in 1921 as it could not fill the orders\n         it had on hand.","The Low Moor Company furnaces lay idle for some twenty\n         months. Finally, in November 1922 one of Low Moor's\n         furnaces was finally fired up. While prosperity gradually\n         returned to the rest of the country, the Low Moor Iron\n         Company never recovered. Production of pig iron in the\n         Virginia iron industry declined from 544,034 tons in 1903\n         to 148,053 tons in 1923, considered a good year for the\n         industry as a whole. In February 1926 Low Moor officials\n         talked of merging with two other iron companies in order to\n         revive the iron business for the three companies. The\n         merger, however, never occurred. By late 1926 the company\n         was in the process of liquidation. An advertisement in the\n         Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail dated April 30, 1927,\n         told of a huge warehouse sale at the Low Moor Iron Company.\n         The advertisement noted \"thousands of screws, pipe\n         fittings, valves, etc.\" The last piece of correspondence\n         from the Low Moor Iron Company in the collection is dated\n         1929. It deals with the sale of a machine.","Why did the iron industry in Virginia decline as it did?\n         Some say that lack of speed, efficiency, and a decent\n         transportation system for Alleghany County caused it. In a\n         letter from C. E. Bertie, secretary of the Virginia Pig\n         Iron Association, to the \n         Manufacturers Recorddated 1925, Bertie claimed that it was the\n         tremendous rise in the cost of transportation. Virginia, he\n         claimed, had almost no home market. Over 80% of its normal\n         production was shipped out to other states. The failure of\n         the Interstate Commerce Commission to treat Virginia\n         furnaces as southern furnaces was the cause of much of the\n         trouble. From 1914-1925 there were four blanket increases\n         in freight rates in the country, of which only one applied\n         equally to all localities. Southern furnaces were received\n         only two increases--a 25% increase in 1918 and a 25%\n         increase in 1920--but northern furnaces had had 5%, 15%,\n         25%, and 40% increases in their transportation costs.\n         Virginia furnaces, although recognized as southern\n         furnaces, had had freight rates increased in line with the\n         northern furnaces. Prior to the war Virginia iron reached\n         all points in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois on a\n         competitive basis with southern furnaces. After World War I\n         the advantage was limited to a small portion of\n         southeastern Ohio. All of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan\n         were now lost to the Virginia producers. The Virginia\n         producer, according to Bertie, felt that the freight rates\n         should be restored to a relationship with southern\n         furnaces. If what Bertie said was true, the other southern\n         states iron industries should not have been in the same\n         desperate economic straits as Virginia's, and statistics\n         should support this. In the 1920's production rose to new\n         heights in Alabama. In Tennessee, however, iron production\n         plunged to new lows during the 1920's. While the south\n         accounted for 10.2% of the entire U. S. production in the\n         years 1919-1924, Virginia accounted for less than 1% during\n         those years. In 1915 Virginia accounted for over 6% of the\n         U.S. iron production. One can see a decline in other areas\n         of the south than Virginia. While the discrepancies in the\n         freight rates may have helped cause the decline, clearly\n         there are other reasons.","During the 1900's there was a discovery of extremely\n         rich iron ore deposits in the mid-west. Much of this ore\n         was on or near the surface, making the mining of it both\n         easy and inexpensive. This in turn lowered production costs\n         of the pig iron. This caused iron production to shift to\n         that region, and resulted in a decline in the Virginia iron\n         industry. There was a sharp increase in iron production in\n         the mid-west through the 1920's. The iron ore in the\n         mid-west may have been of better quality than Virginia, but\n         the iron ore in Virginia was of sufficient quality to\n         produce a good pig iron. The western ore deposits were not\n         as conveniently located as Virginia deposits, but the\n         inexpensiveness of production more than made up for it.","In examining the rise and fall of the Low Moor Iron\n         Company, we can see a situation in which the conditions for\n         the manufacture of iron were nearly ideal. There was plenty\n         of land for expansion and resources for the manufacture of\n         the iron. The major internal problem faced by the Low Moor\n         Iron Company was that of transportation. External\n         developments, however, caused the final demise of the Low\n         Moor Iron Company.","Low Moor Iron Company Personnel:","Executive Staff: Managing Director, Colonel H. M.\n         Goodwin: ca. 1881. General Managers: H. G. Merry: ca.\n         1884-1902; E. C. Means: ca. 1905-1915; J. P. Guernsey: ca.\n         1915 (acting General Manager); F. U. Humbert: ca.\n         1916-1929. Assistant General Manager: E. B. Wilkinson: ca.\n         1909-1915. Treasurers and Assistant Treasurers: Edward Low:\n         ca. 1886-1898; Frank Lyman (in New York): ca. 1898-1919; S.\n         G. Cragill (Asst. Treasurer): ca. 1900-1915; H. A. Dalton:\n         ca. 1921-1929; John Lipscomb (Asst. Treasurer): ca.\n         1918-1928.","Factory and Mine Supervisors: Kay Moor Superintendents:\n         C. C. Cooke: ca. 1918; Ed. D. Wickes: ca. 1906; H. L.\n         Tansell: ca. 1903; A. H. Reed: ca. 1906. Kay Moor Managers:\n         J. W. Monteith: manager of mines. ca. 1918; promoted in\n         1925 to general superintendent in charge of mine plants,\n         coke ovens, shops, repairs, and construction; A. L.\n         Monteith: assistant superintendent of mines, ca. 1918;\n         George T. Wickes: manager of Covington mines, ca.\n         1906-1917; Ross Howell, ca. 1918. Stack Mines\n         Superintendents: J. H. Carpenter: ca. 1906; C. D.\n         Oberschain: ca. 1907; J. L. Harris: ca. 1903; John S. Ham:\n         ca. 1891-1901. Rich Patch Mines Superintendents: John R.\n         Thompson: foreman, ca. 1906. Low Moor assorted other\n         personnel: S. L. Tulley: trainmaster, ca. 1906; B. J.\n         Shenkley: foreman, Low Moor limestone quarries; L. Q. Wood:\n         assistant traffic manager, ca. 1919.","The Low Moor Iron Company ceased operations in 1930;\n            what happened to the records of the company in the years\n            immediately following is not known, but in 1939, the Green\n            Bookman, a Charlottesville bookshop, sold the records to\n            the University of Virginia Library.","The records arrived at the receiving room door of the\n            new Alderman Library on October 16, 1939, in a trailer\n            truck whose load was estimated to weigh about fourteen\n            tons. As the manuscripts staff dug around in the piles of\n            over 1200 account books, and countless boxes of papers they\n            realized that the company had saved almost all of its\n            papers including checks, invoices, vouchers, and receipts,\n            and certain of these records were destroyed as their\n            information was recorded in other records. Once the bulk of\n            the collection had been reduced, the remaining records were\n            transferred to the stack area of the Division of Rare Books\n            and Manuscripts.","By 1958, little storage space remained in Alderman\n            Library, and the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division was\n            especially crowded because of the rapid growth of its\n            collections. After an examination of its storage areas, the\n            division's staff decided to move the Low Moor records to\n            the attic of one of the student dormitories. The collection\n            had had little use chiefly because there was no finding\n            aid. There seemed little likelihood of extensive researcher\n            use until the collection could be processed.","In preparation for the move, the old letter boxes in\n            which much of the collection had arrived in the Library\n            were discarded. The records from each box were placed\n            between sheets of the heavy gray cardboard used to protect\n            unbound newspapers in the Library's stacks, and the spine\n            labels of the old letter boxes were copied onto the\n            cardboard. The resulting bundles were wrapped with brown\n            Kraft paper and tied up with string. The bundles were\n            numbered. Whatever original order the letter boxes may have\n            had was lost by the time they arrived in the Library, and\n            after the bundling, removal to a dormitory attic, and\n            subsequent return to the Library in 1976, all vestiges of\n            the original order were lost.","The bundles remained in the dormitory attic for almost\n            twenty years. Occasional visits were made by the division\n            staff to check on their condition, and on very rare\n            occasions, a researcher was brave enough to ask to be shown\n            the collection. Once the researcher saw the imposing amount\n            of material and the conditions in the attic, interest in\n            using the collection invariably died.","In late 1976 a grant from the National Endowment for the\n            Humanities was obtained to allow the Library to process the\n            Low Moor Iron Company papers, and the papers of Edward L.\n            Stone and the Borderland Coal Company, another large\n            collection of records stored in the same dormitory attic.\n            All of these records and papers were moved back to the\n            Library where the bundles were cleaned and opened. The\n            contents of each were placed in a Hollinger storage box,\n            and all notes on the paper wrappings and on the gray\n            cardboard sheets were recorded.","The more than 1200 bound accounting records of the Low\n            Moor Iron Company were surveyed by the grant project staff.\n            The contents of each volume were noted on a mimeographed\n            form, and later typed on 3 x 5\" cards to create a\n            readily-accessible file for the Manuscripts Reading Room.\n            This information was also typed on pages to be added to\n            this guide.","The Low Moor Iron Company papers consist of\n         approximately 280 four-inch Hollinger archives boxes (ca.\n         95 linear feet) of records, ca. 1885-1927, and some 1200\n         bound volumes of the company's accounting records,\n         1873-1927, of this iron producing company located in Low\n         Moor (four miles southwest of Clifton Forge), Alleghany\n         County, Virginia.","This material consists of records typical of those\n         produced by a firm of this type in the period, but as the\n         company owned its own coal and iron mines and limestone\n         quarries, there is considerable information about the\n         production of these raw materials. Large numbers of the\n         records that deal with the company's employees have\n         survived: time books, payroll books, hands ledgers, and the\n         like. Because these books sometimes include information\n         about the employee's trade or job with the company, and as\n         race is indicated in some of the records, these books\n         should provide date for studies of the structure and upward\n         mobility within the labor force, patterns of\n         ethnic--possibly racial--occupational penetration and\n         mobility, material conditions of the workers, and so on.\n         The papers should permit a range of studies detailing the\n         pattern and evolution of industrial organization in the\n         iron industry, and the evolution of markets and marketing\n         structures for the entire period. Because the company was\n         dependent upon railroads to move its raw materials to the\n         furnaces, and for the marketing of its products, there is\n         considerable information about railroads and their\n         relationship to their customers.","See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927"],"collection_ssim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company \n 1873-1927"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["662"],"unitid_tesim":["662"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"access_terms_ssm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"acqinfo_ssim":["This collection was purchased from Green Bookman in\n            1939."],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"physdesc_tesim":["95 linear feer + 1200\n         volumes"],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eStored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections. \n\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access Restrictions"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the container list\n         that follows will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAs noted under \"Provenance,\" the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were subjected to a number of moves; when processing\n         began in the fall of 1976, no discernible scheme of\n         organization could be determined.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to\n         the dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of\n         useful organization. Next, the spine titles of the original\n         letter boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the\n         gray cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory\n         attic), but they, too, proved useless.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThese steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors\n         on the collection, the new student processors were\n         instructed to begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents\n         of the collection. During this inventory, old folders were\n         replaced with acid-free ones, and the original folder\n         headings were copied onto the new ones. Some removal of\n         paper clips was accomplished, and the materials were\n         reviewed and notes taken for the guide.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eSome consolidation of materials was accomplished, and in\n         other cases, materials were moved. This work has created\n         some problems in the numbering of the boxes. Thus, the\n         researchers will find boxes marked \"6A\" and \"23C\"; he will\n         also discover that certain box numbers have been entirely\n         omitted. As the box numbers exist only to aid in the\n         location of material, it was not felt that the unusual\n         numbers and the omissions would cause problems in working\n         with the papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eA certain amount of movement of boxes within the\n         collection, and of materials among boxes, probably would\n         ease use of it. But what processing was accomplished on\n         this project took far longer than had been anticipated, and\n         there was no time in the late spring of 1978, when the\n         processors had to complete their work with the project, to\n         undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they stand in\n         the order in which we found them at the beginning of the\n         project.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization"],"arrangement_tesim":["The word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the container list\n         that follows will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.","As noted under \"Provenance,\" the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were subjected to a number of moves; when processing\n         began in the fall of 1976, no discernible scheme of\n         organization could be determined.","The first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to\n         the dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of\n         useful organization. Next, the spine titles of the original\n         letter boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the\n         gray cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory\n         attic), but they, too, proved useless.","These steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors\n         on the collection, the new student processors were\n         instructed to begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents\n         of the collection. During this inventory, old folders were\n         replaced with acid-free ones, and the original folder\n         headings were copied onto the new ones. Some removal of\n         paper clips was accomplished, and the materials were\n         reviewed and notes taken for the guide.","Some consolidation of materials was accomplished, and in\n         other cases, materials were moved. This work has created\n         some problems in the numbering of the boxes. Thus, the\n         researchers will find boxes marked \"6A\" and \"23C\"; he will\n         also discover that certain box numbers have been entirely\n         omitted. As the box numbers exist only to aid in the\n         location of material, it was not felt that the unusual\n         numbers and the omissions would cause problems in working\n         with the papers.","A certain amount of movement of boxes within the\n         collection, and of materials among boxes, probably would\n         ease use of it. But what processing was accomplished on\n         this project took far longer than had been anticipated, and\n         there was no time in the late spring of 1978, when the\n         processors had to complete their work with the project, to\n         undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they stand in\n         the order in which we found them at the beginning of the\n         project."],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Low Moor Iron Company, the first producer of pig\n         iron in Virginia according to the company's claims, was a\n         self-contained manufacturing unit producing from its own\n         mines the coal, limestone, and iron ore needed for its iron\n         production. Located in Low Moor near Clifton Forge in\n         Alleghany County in western Virginia, an area rich in\n         mineral deposits, the company was in operation from\n         1872-1930, producing only pig iron; it never attempted to\n         produce finished iron products.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eCoal came to the Low Moor furnaces from the Kay Moor\n         Mines at Kay Moor, West Virginia, about thirty miles from\n         Low Moor; limestone was produced from the Low Moor\n         limestone quarries; and iron ore came from the Fenwick,\n         Dolly Ann, Jordan, Rich Patch, Low Moor, and Longdale\n         Mines, most of them within twenty miles of Low Moor at\n         Covington or Clifton Forge.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe towns of Low Moor and Kay Moor were company towns in\n         every respect. Workers lived in company-owned houses,\n         bought food in company stores, worshiped at the company\n         church, saw movies in the company theater, were treated in\n         the company hospital, and were buried in the company\n         cemetery. Workers received part of their pay in scrip that\n         they exchanged for goods and services. According to a\n         statement from the Kay Moor Mines dated November 1904, Kay\n         Moor then employed 338 people, paid them an average wage of\n         $36.26 per month, and issued half of their pay in scrip.\n         Kay Moor had four stores; Low Moor had seven or eight. All\n         of these stores carried large inventories which are\n         detailed in the collection. These inventories are valuable\n         to anyone interested in determining the wants and needs of\n         a coal miner and his family.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn the late 1910's and 1920's Kay Moor had a company\n         theater called the Azure Theater which seated about 300\n         people. There were also plans for a company-owned social\n         center, to have pool tables, a soda fountain, and\n         provisions for dancing and skating. The company was in\n         tough economic straits by the 1920's, however, and there is\n         no evidence that the social center was built. The town of\n         Low Moor was so completely under the company's influence\n         that one of Low Moor Iron Company's assistant managers\n         served as the town sheriff. He often foreclosed on people\n         who did not pay their debts, and drove troublesome people\n         \"out of town on a rail\" as he put it.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Low Moor Iron Company's fortunes fluctuated during\n         the various business cycles between the years 1880-1930.\n         Low Moor was one of the larger pig iron producers in\n         Virginia, but Virginia pig iron production was not\n         important nationally. Low Moor officials sometimes sold\n         their product themselves, but more often they used agents,\n         the prevalent method at the time. Low Moor Iron Company\n         used a variety of agents through the 1900's. James F. Bryan\n         acted as the exclusive agent for the sale of Kay Moor Coal\n         from September 21, 1903 to September, 1905. From about 1890\n         until about 1910 Dalton Nash and Company were the exclusive\n         eastern agents of Low Moor Iron. After that time the\n         exclusive agency went to Philips Isham and Company located\n         in New York. From about 1890 the western agency was handled\n         chiefly by Thomas Mack and Company. After 1902 Thomas Mack\n         and Company underwent a name change, becoming Walter\n         Wallingford and Company, with offices located in\n         Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Chicago.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the Low Moor Iron Company's biggest problem over\n         the years was obtaining railroad cars for the\n         transportation of its finished product. Low Moor Iron\n         Company had its own cars for transporting its raw materials\n         among its various facilities. For the long haul necessary\n         for its finished goods, however, it depended upon the\n         services of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, and the\n         relationship was not always a happy one. The Low Moor\n         Company complained many times to the C \u0026amp; O Railroad\n         about the discrepancies between long-and shorthaul freight\n         rates. Low Moor also had trouble getting cars from the C\n         \u0026amp; O. In a letter to one of Low Moor Company's agents\n         from an irate customer dated 1898, the customer wrote: \"We\n         wrote you on Saturday and endeavored to question upon your\n         mind the necessity of taking care of us with Low Moor iron.\n         We are on our uppers--there is not a pound of Low Moor iron\n         in the yard. Of the one hundred tons ordered some time ago,\n         not one pound of it has been received.\" This was, according\n         to the Low Moor Iron Company, because they could not get\n         the railroad cars. In a letter from Thomas Mack and Company\n         dated November 26, 1901, to General Manager E. C. Means:\n         \"We are hopeful that the car supply will get better because\n         of the number of orders you have of ours for prompt\n         shipment. Our customers are complaining that they are not\n         getting the iron fast enough. . . . We hope that the\n         railroad will be able to supply you with empty cars.\" In\n         another letter dated 1916 to John B. Guernsey, then acting\n         General Manager of the Low Moor Iron Company, \"We were not\n         supplied with coke cars for today's loading, and\n         consequently we have been practically down of Kay Moor\n         ovens all day.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe problem of procuring labor also plagued the Low Moor\n         Company. The company sometimes tried to hire immigrant\n         laborers and send the men directly to Low Moor from New\n         York City. There were problems with this, as is explained\n         in the following letter dated April 7, 1906: \n         \u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo Mr. George Wickes \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eSupt. of Mines \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eKay Moor, Virginia \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDear George, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eTony arrived with twenty one men last night. One\n            got away in Jersey two in Washington D.C., four in\n            Charlottesville. Some of the men are very good looking,\n            but taken as a whole they are the worst lot I have ever\n            seen: Irish, German-Jews, and Italians. . . . Our New\n            York transportations to this place have never been a\n            success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSigned, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eEd D. Wickes Supt. of Mines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003eLow Moor usually employed labor agencies, one\n         of which was Atwood's Employment Agency. Often the Low Moor\n         Company would request certain nationalities, believing them\n         to be better workers than others. Sometimes the company\n         would request a gang of twenty made up of \"ten Greeks and\n         ten Italians.\" Many of the immigrants fled Low Moor and Kay\n         Moor when they learned that they would have to work\n         underground. There is a fair amount of material on\n         immigrant labor and its procurement in the collection, and\n         it is noted in the description of the box contents.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLow Moor Iron Company not only had trouble procuring\n         labor, but it also had trouble with labor already employed\n         in the mines and at the factory. Labor dissension and\n         strikes troubled the Kay Moor Mines through the 1900's. The\n         great coal strike of 1902 hurt the Low Moor Company's coal\n         mining operation, but by 1903 things were \"nearly back to\n         normal\" according to the mine superintendent. There was\n         still trouble at Kay Moor Mines, however. In a letter dated\n         April 26, 1906, to the treasurer of Low Moor Company, the\n         manager of the mines wrote about the trouble in \"trying to\n         get the agitators out.\" The mines were seventy-five men\n         short of the total labor force needed because many of the\n         coal miners returned to their farms during the spring.\n         There were rumblings of another strike at Kay Moor, the\n         result of which was to be a fourteen percent increase in\n         wages for the Kay Moor Mine workers via an agreement with\n         the United Mine Workers Union in December.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Low Moor Iron Company grew along with the rest of\n         Virginia industry in the 1890's and 1900's. Starting with\n         only one furnace in the 1870's, it opened a second furnace\n         at Covington, Virginia, in 1891. In 1911 it opened a third\n         furnace, this time at Low Moor. Covington, with its heavy\n         industry, soon became known as the \"Pittsburgh of\n         Virginia.\" Virginia's pig iron production rose from 9,000\n         short tons in 1870 to 544,034 long tons in 1903. Judging\n         from the Low Moor Company's correspondence, the most\n         prosperous period for the company fell between the years\n         1895-1907. In the years between 1907-1917 problems befell\n         the Virginia pig iron industry. In a letter from William W.\n         Hearns, the president of the Virginia based Princess Pig\n         Iron Company, to U. S. Senator Thomas S. Martin, Hearns\n         writes of the problems of the Virginia pig iron industry:\n         \"There is not a blast furnace in Virginia that is making\n         any money from the manufacture of pig iron. The cause of\n         this is there is an exceedingly low price on pig iron in\n         the country at the present time, and the increased cost of\n         manufacturing is due to the increase in wages in all\n         lines.\" With the outbreak of World War I prices rose\n         dramatically, but in a market report to Low Moor dated\n         November 11, 1916, it was stated that: \"In spite of the\n         high prices, it is not a picnic to be in the iron industry.\n         There is a desperate shortage of cars and equipment in the\n         coal and iron districts, and in consequence there are\n         troubles of all kinds to get materials shipped. The\n         situation has grown serious.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhen America became involved in the First World War, it\n         meant a boost for the Low Moor Iron Company. The government\n         helped it procure labor, and even helped it repair its\n         furnaces. The problem of supplies and cars for their\n         shipments, however, plagued the company more than ever. It\n         had a good deal of trouble getting all the raw materials it\n         needed due chiefly to the \"tight ship\" run by Harry F.\n         Byrd, Sr., U.S. Fuel Administrator for Virginia. After the\n         war very serious problems began to trouble the Low Moor\n         Iron Company. The demand for iron fell precipitously and a\n         short but severe depression ensued from 1919-1922. The\n         depression seemed to hit the iron industry especially hard.\n         Prices took a huge drop due to the lack of demand, and many\n         pre-war contracts had to be revalued. To compound the\n         company's problems, the Kay Moor Mines went on strike in\n         1919. This strike was quickly settled, as the market for\n         coal was so good that the Low Moor Company ceased taking\n         orders temporarily in 1921 as it could not fill the orders\n         it had on hand.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Low Moor Company furnaces lay idle for some twenty\n         months. Finally, in November 1922 one of Low Moor's\n         furnaces was finally fired up. While prosperity gradually\n         returned to the rest of the country, the Low Moor Iron\n         Company never recovered. Production of pig iron in the\n         Virginia iron industry declined from 544,034 tons in 1903\n         to 148,053 tons in 1923, considered a good year for the\n         industry as a whole. In February 1926 Low Moor officials\n         talked of merging with two other iron companies in order to\n         revive the iron business for the three companies. The\n         merger, however, never occurred. By late 1926 the company\n         was in the process of liquidation. An advertisement in the\n         Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail dated April 30, 1927,\n         told of a huge warehouse sale at the Low Moor Iron Company.\n         The advertisement noted \"thousands of screws, pipe\n         fittings, valves, etc.\" The last piece of correspondence\n         from the Low Moor Iron Company in the collection is dated\n         1929. It deals with the sale of a machine.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhy did the iron industry in Virginia decline as it did?\n         Some say that lack of speed, efficiency, and a decent\n         transportation system for Alleghany County caused it. In a\n         letter from C. E. Bertie, secretary of the Virginia Pig\n         Iron Association, to the \n         \u003cbibref type=\"simple\" href=\"\"\u003e\u003ctitle type=\"simple\" href=\"\"\u003eManufacturers Record\u003c/title\u003e\u003c/bibref\u003edated 1925, Bertie claimed that it was the\n         tremendous rise in the cost of transportation. Virginia, he\n         claimed, had almost no home market. Over 80% of its normal\n         production was shipped out to other states. The failure of\n         the Interstate Commerce Commission to treat Virginia\n         furnaces as southern furnaces was the cause of much of the\n         trouble. From 1914-1925 there were four blanket increases\n         in freight rates in the country, of which only one applied\n         equally to all localities. Southern furnaces were received\n         only two increases--a 25% increase in 1918 and a 25%\n         increase in 1920--but northern furnaces had had 5%, 15%,\n         25%, and 40% increases in their transportation costs.\n         Virginia furnaces, although recognized as southern\n         furnaces, had had freight rates increased in line with the\n         northern furnaces. Prior to the war Virginia iron reached\n         all points in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois on a\n         competitive basis with southern furnaces. After World War I\n         the advantage was limited to a small portion of\n         southeastern Ohio. All of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan\n         were now lost to the Virginia producers. The Virginia\n         producer, according to Bertie, felt that the freight rates\n         should be restored to a relationship with southern\n         furnaces. If what Bertie said was true, the other southern\n         states iron industries should not have been in the same\n         desperate economic straits as Virginia's, and statistics\n         should support this. In the 1920's production rose to new\n         heights in Alabama. In Tennessee, however, iron production\n         plunged to new lows during the 1920's. While the south\n         accounted for 10.2% of the entire U. S. production in the\n         years 1919-1924, Virginia accounted for less than 1% during\n         those years. In 1915 Virginia accounted for over 6% of the\n         U.S. iron production. One can see a decline in other areas\n         of the south than Virginia. While the discrepancies in the\n         freight rates may have helped cause the decline, clearly\n         there are other reasons.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eDuring the 1900's there was a discovery of extremely\n         rich iron ore deposits in the mid-west. Much of this ore\n         was on or near the surface, making the mining of it both\n         easy and inexpensive. This in turn lowered production costs\n         of the pig iron. This caused iron production to shift to\n         that region, and resulted in a decline in the Virginia iron\n         industry. There was a sharp increase in iron production in\n         the mid-west through the 1920's. The iron ore in the\n         mid-west may have been of better quality than Virginia, but\n         the iron ore in Virginia was of sufficient quality to\n         produce a good pig iron. The western ore deposits were not\n         as conveniently located as Virginia deposits, but the\n         inexpensiveness of production more than made up for it.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn examining the rise and fall of the Low Moor Iron\n         Company, we can see a situation in which the conditions for\n         the manufacture of iron were nearly ideal. There was plenty\n         of land for expansion and resources for the manufacture of\n         the iron. The major internal problem faced by the Low Moor\n         Iron Company was that of transportation. External\n         developments, however, caused the final demise of the Low\n         Moor Iron Company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLow Moor Iron Company Personnel:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eExecutive Staff: Managing Director, Colonel H. M.\n         Goodwin: ca. 1881. General Managers: H. G. Merry: ca.\n         1884-1902; E. C. Means: ca. 1905-1915; J. P. Guernsey: ca.\n         1915 (acting General Manager); F. U. Humbert: ca.\n         1916-1929. Assistant General Manager: E. B. Wilkinson: ca.\n         1909-1915. Treasurers and Assistant Treasurers: Edward Low:\n         ca. 1886-1898; Frank Lyman (in New York): ca. 1898-1919; S.\n         G. Cragill (Asst. Treasurer): ca. 1900-1915; H. A. Dalton:\n         ca. 1921-1929; John Lipscomb (Asst. Treasurer): ca.\n         1918-1928.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eFactory and Mine Supervisors: Kay Moor Superintendents:\n         C. C. Cooke: ca. 1918; Ed. D. Wickes: ca. 1906; H. L.\n         Tansell: ca. 1903; A. H. Reed: ca. 1906. Kay Moor Managers:\n         J. W. Monteith: manager of mines. ca. 1918; promoted in\n         1925 to general superintendent in charge of mine plants,\n         coke ovens, shops, repairs, and construction; A. L.\n         Monteith: assistant superintendent of mines, ca. 1918;\n         George T. Wickes: manager of Covington mines, ca.\n         1906-1917; Ross Howell, ca. 1918. Stack Mines\n         Superintendents: J. H. Carpenter: ca. 1906; C. D.\n         Oberschain: ca. 1907; J. L. Harris: ca. 1903; John S. Ham:\n         ca. 1891-1901. Rich Patch Mines Superintendents: John R.\n         Thompson: foreman, ca. 1906. Low Moor assorted other\n         personnel: S. L. Tulley: trainmaster, ca. 1906; B. J.\n         Shenkley: foreman, Low Moor limestone quarries; L. Q. Wood:\n         assistant traffic manager, ca. 1919.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Biographical/Historical Information"],"bioghist_tesim":["The Low Moor Iron Company, the first producer of pig\n         iron in Virginia according to the company's claims, was a\n         self-contained manufacturing unit producing from its own\n         mines the coal, limestone, and iron ore needed for its iron\n         production. Located in Low Moor near Clifton Forge in\n         Alleghany County in western Virginia, an area rich in\n         mineral deposits, the company was in operation from\n         1872-1930, producing only pig iron; it never attempted to\n         produce finished iron products.","Coal came to the Low Moor furnaces from the Kay Moor\n         Mines at Kay Moor, West Virginia, about thirty miles from\n         Low Moor; limestone was produced from the Low Moor\n         limestone quarries; and iron ore came from the Fenwick,\n         Dolly Ann, Jordan, Rich Patch, Low Moor, and Longdale\n         Mines, most of them within twenty miles of Low Moor at\n         Covington or Clifton Forge.","The towns of Low Moor and Kay Moor were company towns in\n         every respect. Workers lived in company-owned houses,\n         bought food in company stores, worshiped at the company\n         church, saw movies in the company theater, were treated in\n         the company hospital, and were buried in the company\n         cemetery. Workers received part of their pay in scrip that\n         they exchanged for goods and services. According to a\n         statement from the Kay Moor Mines dated November 1904, Kay\n         Moor then employed 338 people, paid them an average wage of\n         $36.26 per month, and issued half of their pay in scrip.\n         Kay Moor had four stores; Low Moor had seven or eight. All\n         of these stores carried large inventories which are\n         detailed in the collection. These inventories are valuable\n         to anyone interested in determining the wants and needs of\n         a coal miner and his family.","In the late 1910's and 1920's Kay Moor had a company\n         theater called the Azure Theater which seated about 300\n         people. There were also plans for a company-owned social\n         center, to have pool tables, a soda fountain, and\n         provisions for dancing and skating. The company was in\n         tough economic straits by the 1920's, however, and there is\n         no evidence that the social center was built. The town of\n         Low Moor was so completely under the company's influence\n         that one of Low Moor Iron Company's assistant managers\n         served as the town sheriff. He often foreclosed on people\n         who did not pay their debts, and drove troublesome people\n         \"out of town on a rail\" as he put it.","The Low Moor Iron Company's fortunes fluctuated during\n         the various business cycles between the years 1880-1930.\n         Low Moor was one of the larger pig iron producers in\n         Virginia, but Virginia pig iron production was not\n         important nationally. Low Moor officials sometimes sold\n         their product themselves, but more often they used agents,\n         the prevalent method at the time. Low Moor Iron Company\n         used a variety of agents through the 1900's. James F. Bryan\n         acted as the exclusive agent for the sale of Kay Moor Coal\n         from September 21, 1903 to September, 1905. From about 1890\n         until about 1910 Dalton Nash and Company were the exclusive\n         eastern agents of Low Moor Iron. After that time the\n         exclusive agency went to Philips Isham and Company located\n         in New York. From about 1890 the western agency was handled\n         chiefly by Thomas Mack and Company. After 1902 Thomas Mack\n         and Company underwent a name change, becoming Walter\n         Wallingford and Company, with offices located in\n         Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Chicago.","Perhaps the Low Moor Iron Company's biggest problem over\n         the years was obtaining railroad cars for the\n         transportation of its finished product. Low Moor Iron\n         Company had its own cars for transporting its raw materials\n         among its various facilities. For the long haul necessary\n         for its finished goods, however, it depended upon the\n         services of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, and the\n         relationship was not always a happy one. The Low Moor\n         Company complained many times to the C \u0026 O Railroad\n         about the discrepancies between long-and shorthaul freight\n         rates. Low Moor also had trouble getting cars from the C\n         \u0026 O. In a letter to one of Low Moor Company's agents\n         from an irate customer dated 1898, the customer wrote: \"We\n         wrote you on Saturday and endeavored to question upon your\n         mind the necessity of taking care of us with Low Moor iron.\n         We are on our uppers--there is not a pound of Low Moor iron\n         in the yard. Of the one hundred tons ordered some time ago,\n         not one pound of it has been received.\" This was, according\n         to the Low Moor Iron Company, because they could not get\n         the railroad cars. In a letter from Thomas Mack and Company\n         dated November 26, 1901, to General Manager E. C. Means:\n         \"We are hopeful that the car supply will get better because\n         of the number of orders you have of ours for prompt\n         shipment. Our customers are complaining that they are not\n         getting the iron fast enough. . . . We hope that the\n         railroad will be able to supply you with empty cars.\" In\n         another letter dated 1916 to John B. Guernsey, then acting\n         General Manager of the Low Moor Iron Company, \"We were not\n         supplied with coke cars for today's loading, and\n         consequently we have been practically down of Kay Moor\n         ovens all day.\"","The problem of procuring labor also plagued the Low Moor\n         Company. The company sometimes tried to hire immigrant\n         laborers and send the men directly to Low Moor from New\n         York City. There were problems with this, as is explained\n         in the following letter dated April 7, 1906: \n         To Mr. George Wickes \n            Supt. of Mines \n            Kay Moor, Virginia \n            Dear George, \n            Tony arrived with twenty one men last night. One\n            got away in Jersey two in Washington D.C., four in\n            Charlottesville. Some of the men are very good looking,\n            but taken as a whole they are the worst lot I have ever\n            seen: Irish, German-Jews, and Italians. . . . Our New\n            York transportations to this place have never been a\n            success.Signed, \n            Ed D. Wickes Supt. of MinesLow Moor usually employed labor agencies, one\n         of which was Atwood's Employment Agency. Often the Low Moor\n         Company would request certain nationalities, believing them\n         to be better workers than others. Sometimes the company\n         would request a gang of twenty made up of \"ten Greeks and\n         ten Italians.\" Many of the immigrants fled Low Moor and Kay\n         Moor when they learned that they would have to work\n         underground. There is a fair amount of material on\n         immigrant labor and its procurement in the collection, and\n         it is noted in the description of the box contents.","Low Moor Iron Company not only had trouble procuring\n         labor, but it also had trouble with labor already employed\n         in the mines and at the factory. Labor dissension and\n         strikes troubled the Kay Moor Mines through the 1900's. The\n         great coal strike of 1902 hurt the Low Moor Company's coal\n         mining operation, but by 1903 things were \"nearly back to\n         normal\" according to the mine superintendent. There was\n         still trouble at Kay Moor Mines, however. In a letter dated\n         April 26, 1906, to the treasurer of Low Moor Company, the\n         manager of the mines wrote about the trouble in \"trying to\n         get the agitators out.\" The mines were seventy-five men\n         short of the total labor force needed because many of the\n         coal miners returned to their farms during the spring.\n         There were rumblings of another strike at Kay Moor, the\n         result of which was to be a fourteen percent increase in\n         wages for the Kay Moor Mine workers via an agreement with\n         the United Mine Workers Union in December.","The Low Moor Iron Company grew along with the rest of\n         Virginia industry in the 1890's and 1900's. Starting with\n         only one furnace in the 1870's, it opened a second furnace\n         at Covington, Virginia, in 1891. In 1911 it opened a third\n         furnace, this time at Low Moor. Covington, with its heavy\n         industry, soon became known as the \"Pittsburgh of\n         Virginia.\" Virginia's pig iron production rose from 9,000\n         short tons in 1870 to 544,034 long tons in 1903. Judging\n         from the Low Moor Company's correspondence, the most\n         prosperous period for the company fell between the years\n         1895-1907. In the years between 1907-1917 problems befell\n         the Virginia pig iron industry. In a letter from William W.\n         Hearns, the president of the Virginia based Princess Pig\n         Iron Company, to U. S. Senator Thomas S. Martin, Hearns\n         writes of the problems of the Virginia pig iron industry:\n         \"There is not a blast furnace in Virginia that is making\n         any money from the manufacture of pig iron. The cause of\n         this is there is an exceedingly low price on pig iron in\n         the country at the present time, and the increased cost of\n         manufacturing is due to the increase in wages in all\n         lines.\" With the outbreak of World War I prices rose\n         dramatically, but in a market report to Low Moor dated\n         November 11, 1916, it was stated that: \"In spite of the\n         high prices, it is not a picnic to be in the iron industry.\n         There is a desperate shortage of cars and equipment in the\n         coal and iron districts, and in consequence there are\n         troubles of all kinds to get materials shipped. The\n         situation has grown serious.\"","When America became involved in the First World War, it\n         meant a boost for the Low Moor Iron Company. The government\n         helped it procure labor, and even helped it repair its\n         furnaces. The problem of supplies and cars for their\n         shipments, however, plagued the company more than ever. It\n         had a good deal of trouble getting all the raw materials it\n         needed due chiefly to the \"tight ship\" run by Harry F.\n         Byrd, Sr., U.S. Fuel Administrator for Virginia. After the\n         war very serious problems began to trouble the Low Moor\n         Iron Company. The demand for iron fell precipitously and a\n         short but severe depression ensued from 1919-1922. The\n         depression seemed to hit the iron industry especially hard.\n         Prices took a huge drop due to the lack of demand, and many\n         pre-war contracts had to be revalued. To compound the\n         company's problems, the Kay Moor Mines went on strike in\n         1919. This strike was quickly settled, as the market for\n         coal was so good that the Low Moor Company ceased taking\n         orders temporarily in 1921 as it could not fill the orders\n         it had on hand.","The Low Moor Company furnaces lay idle for some twenty\n         months. Finally, in November 1922 one of Low Moor's\n         furnaces was finally fired up. While prosperity gradually\n         returned to the rest of the country, the Low Moor Iron\n         Company never recovered. Production of pig iron in the\n         Virginia iron industry declined from 544,034 tons in 1903\n         to 148,053 tons in 1923, considered a good year for the\n         industry as a whole. In February 1926 Low Moor officials\n         talked of merging with two other iron companies in order to\n         revive the iron business for the three companies. The\n         merger, however, never occurred. By late 1926 the company\n         was in the process of liquidation. An advertisement in the\n         Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail dated April 30, 1927,\n         told of a huge warehouse sale at the Low Moor Iron Company.\n         The advertisement noted \"thousands of screws, pipe\n         fittings, valves, etc.\" The last piece of correspondence\n         from the Low Moor Iron Company in the collection is dated\n         1929. It deals with the sale of a machine.","Why did the iron industry in Virginia decline as it did?\n         Some say that lack of speed, efficiency, and a decent\n         transportation system for Alleghany County caused it. In a\n         letter from C. E. Bertie, secretary of the Virginia Pig\n         Iron Association, to the \n         Manufacturers Recorddated 1925, Bertie claimed that it was the\n         tremendous rise in the cost of transportation. Virginia, he\n         claimed, had almost no home market. Over 80% of its normal\n         production was shipped out to other states. The failure of\n         the Interstate Commerce Commission to treat Virginia\n         furnaces as southern furnaces was the cause of much of the\n         trouble. From 1914-1925 there were four blanket increases\n         in freight rates in the country, of which only one applied\n         equally to all localities. Southern furnaces were received\n         only two increases--a 25% increase in 1918 and a 25%\n         increase in 1920--but northern furnaces had had 5%, 15%,\n         25%, and 40% increases in their transportation costs.\n         Virginia furnaces, although recognized as southern\n         furnaces, had had freight rates increased in line with the\n         northern furnaces. Prior to the war Virginia iron reached\n         all points in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois on a\n         competitive basis with southern furnaces. After World War I\n         the advantage was limited to a small portion of\n         southeastern Ohio. All of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan\n         were now lost to the Virginia producers. The Virginia\n         producer, according to Bertie, felt that the freight rates\n         should be restored to a relationship with southern\n         furnaces. If what Bertie said was true, the other southern\n         states iron industries should not have been in the same\n         desperate economic straits as Virginia's, and statistics\n         should support this. In the 1920's production rose to new\n         heights in Alabama. In Tennessee, however, iron production\n         plunged to new lows during the 1920's. While the south\n         accounted for 10.2% of the entire U. S. production in the\n         years 1919-1924, Virginia accounted for less than 1% during\n         those years. In 1915 Virginia accounted for over 6% of the\n         U.S. iron production. One can see a decline in other areas\n         of the south than Virginia. While the discrepancies in the\n         freight rates may have helped cause the decline, clearly\n         there are other reasons.","During the 1900's there was a discovery of extremely\n         rich iron ore deposits in the mid-west. Much of this ore\n         was on or near the surface, making the mining of it both\n         easy and inexpensive. This in turn lowered production costs\n         of the pig iron. This caused iron production to shift to\n         that region, and resulted in a decline in the Virginia iron\n         industry. There was a sharp increase in iron production in\n         the mid-west through the 1920's. The iron ore in the\n         mid-west may have been of better quality than Virginia, but\n         the iron ore in Virginia was of sufficient quality to\n         produce a good pig iron. The western ore deposits were not\n         as conveniently located as Virginia deposits, but the\n         inexpensiveness of production more than made up for it.","In examining the rise and fall of the Low Moor Iron\n         Company, we can see a situation in which the conditions for\n         the manufacture of iron were nearly ideal. There was plenty\n         of land for expansion and resources for the manufacture of\n         the iron. The major internal problem faced by the Low Moor\n         Iron Company was that of transportation. External\n         developments, however, caused the final demise of the Low\n         Moor Iron Company.","Low Moor Iron Company Personnel:","Executive Staff: Managing Director, Colonel H. M.\n         Goodwin: ca. 1881. General Managers: H. G. Merry: ca.\n         1884-1902; E. C. Means: ca. 1905-1915; J. P. Guernsey: ca.\n         1915 (acting General Manager); F. U. Humbert: ca.\n         1916-1929. Assistant General Manager: E. B. Wilkinson: ca.\n         1909-1915. Treasurers and Assistant Treasurers: Edward Low:\n         ca. 1886-1898; Frank Lyman (in New York): ca. 1898-1919; S.\n         G. Cragill (Asst. Treasurer): ca. 1900-1915; H. A. Dalton:\n         ca. 1921-1929; John Lipscomb (Asst. Treasurer): ca.\n         1918-1928.","Factory and Mine Supervisors: Kay Moor Superintendents:\n         C. C. Cooke: ca. 1918; Ed. D. Wickes: ca. 1906; H. L.\n         Tansell: ca. 1903; A. H. Reed: ca. 1906. Kay Moor Managers:\n         J. W. Monteith: manager of mines. ca. 1918; promoted in\n         1925 to general superintendent in charge of mine plants,\n         coke ovens, shops, repairs, and construction; A. L.\n         Monteith: assistant superintendent of mines, ca. 1918;\n         George T. Wickes: manager of Covington mines, ca.\n         1906-1917; Ross Howell, ca. 1918. Stack Mines\n         Superintendents: J. H. Carpenter: ca. 1906; C. D.\n         Oberschain: ca. 1907; J. L. Harris: ca. 1903; John S. Ham:\n         ca. 1891-1901. Rich Patch Mines Superintendents: John R.\n         Thompson: foreman, ca. 1906. Low Moor assorted other\n         personnel: S. L. Tulley: trainmaster, ca. 1906; B. J.\n         Shenkley: foreman, Low Moor limestone quarries; L. Q. Wood:\n         assistant traffic manager, ca. 1919."],"custodhist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Low Moor Iron Company ceased operations in 1930;\n            what happened to the records of the company in the years\n            immediately following is not known, but in 1939, the Green\n            Bookman, a Charlottesville bookshop, sold the records to\n            the University of Virginia Library.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eThe records arrived at the receiving room door of the\n            new Alderman Library on October 16, 1939, in a trailer\n            truck whose load was estimated to weigh about fourteen\n            tons. As the manuscripts staff dug around in the piles of\n            over 1200 account books, and countless boxes of papers they\n            realized that the company had saved almost all of its\n            papers including checks, invoices, vouchers, and receipts,\n            and certain of these records were destroyed as their\n            information was recorded in other records. Once the bulk of\n            the collection had been reduced, the remaining records were\n            transferred to the stack area of the Division of Rare Books\n            and Manuscripts.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"custodhist_heading_ssm":["Provenance"],"custodhist_tesim":["The Low Moor Iron Company ceased operations in 1930;\n            what happened to the records of the company in the years\n            immediately following is not known, but in 1939, the Green\n            Bookman, a Charlottesville bookshop, sold the records to\n            the University of Virginia Library.","The records arrived at the receiving room door of the\n            new Alderman Library on October 16, 1939, in a trailer\n            truck whose load was estimated to weigh about fourteen\n            tons. As the manuscripts staff dug around in the piles of\n            over 1200 account books, and countless boxes of papers they\n            realized that the company had saved almost all of its\n            papers including checks, invoices, vouchers, and receipts,\n            and certain of these records were destroyed as their\n            information was recorded in other records. Once the bulk of\n            the collection had been reduced, the remaining records were\n            transferred to the stack area of the Division of Rare Books\n            and Manuscripts."],"otherfindaid_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSome 1200 bound accounting record books of the Low Moor\n            Iron Company came into the custody of the Library with the\n            loose papers. When the project staff investigated these\n            volumes in the dormitory attic where they were stored, they\n            found that the volumes had been shelved by size rather than\n            by series. Thus, a letterbook may stand next to a stock\n            report book for a furnace, which is, in turn, next to a\n            store account book for the Kay Moor Mines' store. No series\n            are shelved in order.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eMembers of the project staff surveyed the volumes,\n            completing for each volume two copies of a mimeographed\n            survey form, and assigning to each volume a number. One\n            copy of the survey report form was placed in the volume,\n            and the second was returned to the Library.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eFrom the survey report forms, 3 x 5 inch index\n            cards--with a carbon copy of each--were typed. One set of\n            index cards has been kept in order by the numbers assigned\n            to the volumes as they stand on the shelves. This provides\n            a shelf list for the use of the library staff. The other\n            set of cards was sorted into categories as a finding aid.\n            On the list that follows, the researcher will find a number\n            of major headings such as \"Accounts,\" \"Inventories,\"\n            \"Letter Books,\" and \"Shipments-Outgoing.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eInsofar as it has been possible to determine from the\n            data on the survey report forms, the volumes have been\n            assigned to categories. Most of the major categories, or\n            headings, have sub-headings. Within those sub-headings, the\n            volumes have been arranged chronologically. The\n            investigators realize that after careful study of some of\n            these volumes, they will be revealed as belonging to other\n            categories than those in which they have initially been\n            placed. The card index will allow such movement.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eAvailable in the Manuscripts/Archives Reading Room in\n            the Library is the sorted card index file. There is a card\n            for every volume in this file whereas, on the pages that\n            follow, volumes have been summarized under the headings and\n            sub-headings. In each case, the number of volumes has been\n            given in the summarized list; the date ranges given are\n            inclusive in most cases, and do not reveal the many gaps in\n            sequences unless the number of volumes is small and the\n            date range wide. Occasional remarks about the content of\n            volumes have been supplied if the contents are not obvious\n            from the heading or sub-heading.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eResearchers wishing to examine any of these volumes will\n            have to use the card index file in order to be able to give\n            to the staff the volume number assigned to the individual\n            volumes that are to be inspected.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"otherfindaid_heading_ssm":["Other Finding Aid"],"otherfindaid_tesim":["Some 1200 bound accounting record books of the Low Moor\n            Iron Company came into the custody of the Library with the\n            loose papers. When the project staff investigated these\n            volumes in the dormitory attic where they were stored, they\n            found that the volumes had been shelved by size rather than\n            by series. Thus, a letterbook may stand next to a stock\n            report book for a furnace, which is, in turn, next to a\n            store account book for the Kay Moor Mines' store. No series\n            are shelved in order.","Members of the project staff surveyed the volumes,\n            completing for each volume two copies of a mimeographed\n            survey form, and assigning to each volume a number. One\n            copy of the survey report form was placed in the volume,\n            and the second was returned to the Library.","From the survey report forms, 3 x 5 inch index\n            cards--with a carbon copy of each--were typed. One set of\n            index cards has been kept in order by the numbers assigned\n            to the volumes as they stand on the shelves. This provides\n            a shelf list for the use of the library staff. The other\n            set of cards was sorted into categories as a finding aid.\n            On the list that follows, the researcher will find a number\n            of major headings such as \"Accounts,\" \"Inventories,\"\n            \"Letter Books,\" and \"Shipments-Outgoing.\"","Insofar as it has been possible to determine from the\n            data on the survey report forms, the volumes have been\n            assigned to categories. Most of the major categories, or\n            headings, have sub-headings. Within those sub-headings, the\n            volumes have been arranged chronologically. The\n            investigators realize that after careful study of some of\n            these volumes, they will be revealed as belonging to other\n            categories than those in which they have initially been\n            placed. The card index will allow such movement.","Available in the Manuscripts/Archives Reading Room in\n            the Library is the sorted card index file. There is a card\n            for every volume in this file whereas, on the pages that\n            follow, volumes have been summarized under the headings and\n            sub-headings. In each case, the number of volumes has been\n            given in the summarized list; the date ranges given are\n            inclusive in most cases, and do not reveal the many gaps in\n            sequences unless the number of volumes is small and the\n            date range wide. Occasional remarks about the content of\n            volumes have been supplied if the contents are not obvious\n            from the heading or sub-heading.","Researchers wishing to examine any of these volumes will\n            have to use the card index file in order to be able to give\n            to the staff the volume number assigned to the individual\n            volumes that are to be inspected."],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003ePapers of the Low Moor Iron Company, Accession #662,\n            Special Collections, University of Virginia Library,\n            Charlottesville, Va.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"prefercite_tesim":["Papers of the Low Moor Iron Company, Accession #662,\n            Special Collections, University of Virginia Library,\n            Charlottesville, Va."],"processinfo_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eBy 1958, little storage space remained in Alderman\n            Library, and the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division was\n            especially crowded because of the rapid growth of its\n            collections. After an examination of its storage areas, the\n            division's staff decided to move the Low Moor records to\n            the attic of one of the student dormitories. The collection\n            had had little use chiefly because there was no finding\n            aid. There seemed little likelihood of extensive researcher\n            use until the collection could be processed.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eIn preparation for the move, the old letter boxes in\n            which much of the collection had arrived in the Library\n            were discarded. The records from each box were placed\n            between sheets of the heavy gray cardboard used to protect\n            unbound newspapers in the Library's stacks, and the spine\n            labels of the old letter boxes were copied onto the\n            cardboard. The resulting bundles were wrapped with brown\n            Kraft paper and tied up with string. The bundles were\n            numbered. Whatever original order the letter boxes may have\n            had was lost by the time they arrived in the Library, and\n            after the bundling, removal to a dormitory attic, and\n            subsequent return to the Library in 1976, all vestiges of\n            the original order were lost.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eThe bundles remained in the dormitory attic for almost\n            twenty years. Occasional visits were made by the division\n            staff to check on their condition, and on very rare\n            occasions, a researcher was brave enough to ask to be shown\n            the collection. Once the researcher saw the imposing amount\n            of material and the conditions in the attic, interest in\n            using the collection invariably died.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eIn late 1976 a grant from the National Endowment for the\n            Humanities was obtained to allow the Library to process the\n            Low Moor Iron Company papers, and the papers of Edward L.\n            Stone and the Borderland Coal Company, another large\n            collection of records stored in the same dormitory attic.\n            All of these records and papers were moved back to the\n            Library where the bundles were cleaned and opened. The\n            contents of each were placed in a Hollinger storage box,\n            and all notes on the paper wrappings and on the gray\n            cardboard sheets were recorded.\u003c/p\u003e\n        ","\u003cp\u003eThe more than 1200 bound accounting records of the Low\n            Moor Iron Company were surveyed by the grant project staff.\n            The contents of each volume were noted on a mimeographed\n            form, and later typed on 3 x 5\" cards to create a\n            readily-accessible file for the Manuscripts Reading Room.\n            This information was also typed on pages to be added to\n            this guide.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"processinfo_heading_ssm":["Processing Information"],"processinfo_tesim":["By 1958, little storage space remained in Alderman\n            Library, and the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division was\n            especially crowded because of the rapid growth of its\n            collections. After an examination of its storage areas, the\n            division's staff decided to move the Low Moor records to\n            the attic of one of the student dormitories. The collection\n            had had little use chiefly because there was no finding\n            aid. There seemed little likelihood of extensive researcher\n            use until the collection could be processed.","In preparation for the move, the old letter boxes in\n            which much of the collection had arrived in the Library\n            were discarded. The records from each box were placed\n            between sheets of the heavy gray cardboard used to protect\n            unbound newspapers in the Library's stacks, and the spine\n            labels of the old letter boxes were copied onto the\n            cardboard. The resulting bundles were wrapped with brown\n            Kraft paper and tied up with string. The bundles were\n            numbered. Whatever original order the letter boxes may have\n            had was lost by the time they arrived in the Library, and\n            after the bundling, removal to a dormitory attic, and\n            subsequent return to the Library in 1976, all vestiges of\n            the original order were lost.","The bundles remained in the dormitory attic for almost\n            twenty years. Occasional visits were made by the division\n            staff to check on their condition, and on very rare\n            occasions, a researcher was brave enough to ask to be shown\n            the collection. Once the researcher saw the imposing amount\n            of material and the conditions in the attic, interest in\n            using the collection invariably died.","In late 1976 a grant from the National Endowment for the\n            Humanities was obtained to allow the Library to process the\n            Low Moor Iron Company papers, and the papers of Edward L.\n            Stone and the Borderland Coal Company, another large\n            collection of records stored in the same dormitory attic.\n            All of these records and papers were moved back to the\n            Library where the bundles were cleaned and opened. The\n            contents of each were placed in a Hollinger storage box,\n            and all notes on the paper wrappings and on the gray\n            cardboard sheets were recorded.","The more than 1200 bound accounting records of the Low\n            Moor Iron Company were surveyed by the grant project staff.\n            The contents of each volume were noted on a mimeographed\n            form, and later typed on 3 x 5\" cards to create a\n            readily-accessible file for the Manuscripts Reading Room.\n            This information was also typed on pages to be added to\n            this guide."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThe Low Moor Iron Company papers consist of\n         approximately 280 four-inch Hollinger archives boxes (ca.\n         95 linear feet) of records, ca. 1885-1927, and some 1200\n         bound volumes of the company's accounting records,\n         1873-1927, of this iron producing company located in Low\n         Moor (four miles southwest of Clifton Forge), Alleghany\n         County, Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThis material consists of records typical of those\n         produced by a firm of this type in the period, but as the\n         company owned its own coal and iron mines and limestone\n         quarries, there is considerable information about the\n         production of these raw materials. Large numbers of the\n         records that deal with the company's employees have\n         survived: time books, payroll books, hands ledgers, and the\n         like. Because these books sometimes include information\n         about the employee's trade or job with the company, and as\n         race is indicated in some of the records, these books\n         should provide date for studies of the structure and upward\n         mobility within the labor force, patterns of\n         ethnic--possibly racial--occupational penetration and\n         mobility, material conditions of the workers, and so on.\n         The papers should permit a range of studies detailing the\n         pattern and evolution of industrial organization in the\n         iron industry, and the evolution of markets and marketing\n         structures for the entire period. Because the company was\n         dependent upon railroads to move its raw materials to the\n         furnaces, and for the marketing of its products, there is\n         considerable information about railroads and their\n         relationship to their customers.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content Information"],"scopecontent_tesim":["The Low Moor Iron Company papers consist of\n         approximately 280 four-inch Hollinger archives boxes (ca.\n         95 linear feet) of records, ca. 1885-1927, and some 1200\n         bound volumes of the company's accounting records,\n         1873-1927, of this iron producing company located in Low\n         Moor (four miles southwest of Clifton Forge), Alleghany\n         County, Virginia.","This material consists of records typical of those\n         produced by a firm of this type in the period, but as the\n         company owned its own coal and iron mines and limestone\n         quarries, there is considerable information about the\n         production of these raw materials. Large numbers of the\n         records that deal with the company's employees have\n         survived: time books, payroll books, hands ledgers, and the\n         like. Because these books sometimes include information\n         about the employee's trade or job with the company, and as\n         race is indicated in some of the records, these books\n         should provide date for studies of the structure and upward\n         mobility within the labor force, patterns of\n         ethnic--possibly racial--occupational penetration and\n         mobility, material conditions of the workers, and so on.\n         The papers should permit a range of studies detailing the\n         pattern and evolution of industrial organization in the\n         iron industry, and the evolution of markets and marketing\n         structures for the entire period. Because the company was\n         dependent upon railroads to move its raw materials to the\n         furnaces, and for the marketing of its products, there is\n         considerable information about railroads and their\n         relationship to their customers."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSee the \n            \u003cextref type=\"simple\" href=\"https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/use-of-materials\"\u003e\n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.\u003c/extref\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Use Restrictions"],"userestrict_tesim":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":1879,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:56:23.128Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00917_c02_c1591"}},{"id":"viu_viu00663_c03_c196","type":"Item","attributes":{"title":"United Printing Machine Co. - catalogues, bills, and letters about orders, 1908/1909","breadcrumbs":{"id":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00663_c03_c196#breadcrumbs","type":"document_value","attributes":{"value":{"ref_ssi":"viu_viu00663_c03_c196","ref_ssm":["viu_viu00663_c03_c196"],"id":"viu_viu00663_c03_c196","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00663","_root_":"viu_viu00663","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00663_c03","parent_ssi":"viu_viu00663_c03","parent_ssim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers"],"parent_ids_ssim":["viu_viu00663","viu_viu00663_c03"],"title_filing_ssi":"United Printing Machine Co. - catalogues,\n                  bills, and letters about orders","title_ssm":["United Printing Machine Co. - catalogues, bills, and letters about orders"],"title_tesim":["United Printing Machine Co. - catalogues, bills, and letters about orders"],"normalized_title_ssm":["United Printing Machine Co. - catalogues, bills, and letters about orders, 1908/1909"],"text":["United Printing Machine Co. - catalogues, bills, and letters about orders, 1908/1909","Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers","box Box 230"],"parent_unittitles_ssm":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers"],"parent_unittitles_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company\n Papers"],"normalized_date_ssm":["1908/1909"],"unitdate_other_ssim":["1908 -1909"],"level_ssm":["Item"],"level_ssim":["Item"],"component_level_isim":[2],"sort_isi":2119,"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"collection_ssim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"containers_ssim":["box Box 230"],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"child_component_count_isi":0,"parent_access_restrict_tesm":["Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections."],"parent_access_terms_tesm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"date_range_isim":[1908,1909],"_nest_path_":"/components#2/components#195","timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:56:08.243Z","collection":{"numFound":1,"start":0,"numFoundExact":true,"docs":[{"id":"viu_viu00663","ead_ssi":"viu_viu00663","_root_":"viu_viu00663","_nest_parent_":"viu_viu00663","ead_source_url_ssi":"data/uva-sc/viu00663.xml","title_ssm":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"title_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"normalized_title_ssm":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"text":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937","382","This collection\n         consists of approximately 500,000 items.","Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections.","After arrival at the University, the collection was placed\n         in the stack areas of the then division of Rare Books and\n         Manuscripts of the Library, and was shelved in close proximity\n         to another large collection received only a year before, that\n         of the Low Moor Iron Company. The two comprised the largest\n         group of material in the division at the time, a group that,\n         unfortunately, was rarely used by researchers as there were no\n         finding aids to the mass, and interested researchers were\n         intimidated by the problems of research in the papers.","The collections remained in the stacks until 1958 when\n         expansion space in the division's storage area was reduced to\n         a minimum by the successful collecting program of the\n         intervening years. A review of the collections and their use\n         showed that the Stone collection and the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were rarely consulted, and it was decided to move them\n         out of the division's quarters to provide storage space for\n         collections that were being used by researchers.","Space was located in the attic of a student dormitory, and\n         the division prepared the papers for long-term storage by\n         removing them from the old letter boxes in which they had\n         arrived. Each bundle of papers was placed between sheets of\n         gray, newspaper-storage cardboard sheets; the spine titles of\n         the old letter boxes were copied onto the cardboard sheets,\n         and the bundle was wrapped in brown paper, tied up with\n         string, and numbered in a coded sequence.","The collections remained in the attic of Lefevre House\n         until the fall of 1976 when, after the receipt of a grant from\n         the National Endowment for the Humanities for the processing\n         of the two collections, they were transported to the Alderman\n         Library building once more In the Library's receiving room,\n         the bundles were cleaned in the dust hood, untied and\n         unwrapped, and the contents transferred into gray, Hollinger\n         storage boxes before transfer into the storage areas of the\n         Manuscripts Department for processing. The coded numbers on\n         the bundles were recorded but proved to be of no use in\n         restoring order to the papers, badly out of sequence from\n         their many moves over the years. Nor did the spine titles and\n         dates from the original letters boxes prove to be of any\n         particular use in organizing the collection.","Once processing work was completed at the end of the summer\n         of 1978, the Stone Papers were transferred back to the\n         dormitory attic as space in the Alderman Library building\n         remained short, and it was felt that adequate service on the\n         Stone Papers could be maintained from the attic now that a\n         guide to the papers had been prepared. (N.B. The Stone papers\n         were removed from the dormitory attic and transferred to the\n         University Library's high-density remote storage facility\n         following its opening in the mid-1990s.)","The word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the lists of box\n         contents that follow will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.","As previously noted, the Stone papers were subjected to a\n         number of moves before processing began, and, unfortunately,\n         there seems to have been little organization of the papers in\n         Mr. Stone's files in his Roanoke office. Presumably, he and\n         his staff could locate material that was needed from the\n         files, but at the time that processing began in the fall of\n         1976, no discernible scheme of organization could be\n         determined.","The first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to the\n         dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of useful\n         organization. Next, the spine titles of the original letter\n         boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the gray\n         cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory attic), but\n         they, too, proved useless.","These steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors on\n         the collection, the new student processors were instructed to\n         begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents of the\n         collection. During this inventory, old folders were replaced\n         with acid-free ones, and the original folder headings were\n         copied onto the new ones. Some removal of papers clips was\n         accomplished, and the materials were reviewed and notes were\n         taken for the guide.","The processors found that Mr. Stone's papers were comprised\n         of three series. One was devoted to his personal affairs, and\n         contained material about his diverse business interests\n         outside his two major ones, and about his civic and\n         professional interests, as well as papers from his private\n         life. The second series contained the papers from his major\n         business and \"first love\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company of Roanoke; and the third series included a wealth of\n         material about the Borderland Coal Company, an enterprise that\n         Mr. Stone served for twenty-seven years, first as president\n         and later, as chairman of the board.","For a long time, we considered separating the three series\n         of papers, and the processors evolved a good system of colored\n         slips clipped to the boxes to identify material from each\n         series contained in a box. However, as they neared the end of\n         their inventory, the processors became convinced, and argued\n         successfully that the series should not be separated.\n         Basically, all these papers are Mr. Stone's private papers as\n         he was the major stockholder in the Stone Printing Company and\n         it was very much a personal operation. There are\n         interrelationships between material that was found standing in\n         different folders in the same box, and the processors\n         correctly feared that drastic reorganization would destroy\n         those relationships. Thus, we decided to accept their\n         argument, and the box contents were allowed to remain as we\n         found them.","A certain amount of movement of boxes within the collection\n         probably would ease use of it. But what processing was\n         accomplished on this project took far longer than had been\n         anticipated, and there was no time in the late spring of 1978,\n         when the processors had to complete their work with the\n         project, to undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they\n         stand in the order in which we found them at the beginning of\n         the project.","As has been stated above, the three series of papers in\n         this collection (Stone Personal; Borderland Coal Co.; and\n         Stone Printing and Mfg. Co.) have not been physically\n         separated and are scattered throughout the collection.\n         However, in the container listing which follows the three\n         series have been separated. Therefore, the listing for the\n         Edward L. Stone Personal Papers series begins with Box 11 of\n         the collection because that is the first box in which Stone's\n         personal papers can be found. (Boxes 1-10 appear in the\n         listing for the Borderland Coal Co. series.) This also means\n         that if a box contains material from more than one series it\n         will have more than one entry in the listing, so that to find\n         a complete listing of a particular box a researcher might need\n         to look at the listing for each of the three series. In\n         addition, some of the box entries in the listing are slightly\n         out of order, so that if a box appears to have no entry or\n         only a partial entry, in a particular series the entry is\n         sometimes picked up on the next page of the listing.","Listings of oversize material are located at the end of the\n         listing for each series.","of Edward L. StoneEdward Lee Stone was born on September 15, 1864, in\n         Liberty (now Bedford) Virginia, the son of John Harmon Stone\n         and Mary Witt Stone. He was reared in very modest\n         circumstances, and received no more than an elementary school\n         education, yet he became one of the wealthiest and most\n         prominent citizens in the state of Virginia.","Edward Stone's career in the printing business is typical\n         of the fabled American dream. At ten years of age, having\n         recently lost his father, Stone was in the boys' playground of\n         his school. J. R. Guy, the editor of the Bedford Sentinel\n         newspaper, came to the playground looking for William Fellers,\n         Stone's cousin. When Stone asked Mr. Guy what he wanted with\n         William, Guy replied \"I want him to carry the papers. Stone\n         said, \"I'll carry 'em' for you.\" After being a delivery boy\n         for the Sentinel, Stone learned to set type and worked\n         evenings after school for five cents an evening; twenty-five\n         cents on Saturday. Less than a year later, economics\n         necessitated that he quit school to pursue his job full time.\n         Stone learned his lessons well, and showed enthusiasm in every\n         phase of his work. Young Stone worked alongside a window, and\n         enjoyed nothing better than to jump out into the street and\n         scrap with some passing youngster, returning to his duties\n         after the fun was over.","Stone was given more and more duties which he performed to\n         this employer's total satisfaction. At the age of sixteen, for\n         some now-inexplicable reason, Stone left the newspaper\n         business to work for a mercantile establishment, He soon grew\n         bored, however, and returned to printer's ink. This time he\n         worked for the Democrat, a weekly newspaper in Buchanan,\n         Virginia, then a thriving town at the intersection of the\n         James River and the Kanawha Canal.","Once, at the age of sixteen, Stone was entrusted with\n         getting out an entire edition of the paper by himself. The\n         editor was in court and many workmen were out sick. Stone and\n         an assistant set type at breakneck speed beginning at 7:15\n         A.M. and had the entire seven-column paper completed by noon\n         --an amazing feat. Stone was out playing ball by 2 P.M. and\n         earned a $5.00 bonus from his boss, editor William J. Boyd. In\n         1882, Boyd informed Stone that he was going to open a printing\n         office in Roanoke, Virginia, then a small town. Boyd wanted\n         Stone to be manager, and on July 20th, 1882, both men arrived\n         in Roanoke. A place could not be found for the new enterprise\n         however, and both returned to Buchanan. Stone became\n         disillusioned with the small scope of opportunities Buchanan\n         provided, and, with an ambition to \"become somebody\" in the\n         printing business, set out for Lynchburg. Landing in Lynchburg\n         in January 1883 he applied for work on the News and, after a\n         few days, secured a position as compositor. Here he remained\n         until March, achieving considerable reputation as a fast\n         compositor, yet not satisfied. Stone really longed for a\n         position in the printing business. John P. Bell offered Stone\n         a minor position in a branch office he had planned to open in\n         Roanoke. The position was, in most respects, inferior to the\n         one he had already held, but Stone gladly took it. He worked\n         hard, and showed superior business ability which impressed Mr.\n         Bell so much that when the manager of the business died in\n         1885 his position was offered to Stone. The position was not\n         offered without some misgivings because of Stone's youth (he\n         was only twenty-one) and his lack of business experience.\n         Stone, however, did such a good job as manager that Bell\n         realized that he had made the right choice. Stone eventually\n         gained control of the business and became president of the\n         company.","His position was secure enough that in 1890, he married\n         Miss Minnie Fishburn, daughter of J. A. Fishburn, a prominent\n         business man of Roanoke. The couple had one child, Mary\n         Katherine Stone.","Edward Stone's printing business grew in size and wealth.\n         By 1920 it was acknowledged by many to be the best-equipped\n         printing corporation in the south, and one of the largest as\n         well. He had many other business interests. He was president\n         of the Borderland Coal Corporation, president of the Virginia\n         Bridge and Iron Company, vice president and later president of\n         the Walker Foundry and Machine Company, chairman of the First\n         National Exchange Bank, and president of his primary business\n         and \"first love,\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company.","In March 1896 Stone was presented with a petition signed by\n         fourteen Roanoke business men requesting that he run for\n         mayor. Stone was very tempted, but a law stating that no one\n         in Roanoke public office would be permitted to do business\n         with the city stopped him. Stone felt that not being able to\n         do business with the city would be unfair to his stockholders.\n         Stone, a civic-minded individual, was chairman of the Roanoke\n         Community Fund in 1924, and of the City Planning and Zoning\n         Commission. He was also chairman of the war bond committee\n         during the First World War, and belonged to many societies and\n         organizations, including the American Institute of Graphic\n         Arts, the Florida State Historical Society, the Shenandoah\n         Club of Roanoke, the Country Club of Roanoke, the Roanoke Gun\n         Club, the Roanoke German Club, the Virginia Historical Society\n         (life member), the Better Printing Committee of the United\n         Typothetae of America, the Roanoke Rotary Club, the\n         International Benjamin Franklin Society of New York, and the\n         board of trustees of the Committee to Assist the Blind.","Edward Stone was also an extremely charitable man. He gave\n         large sums of money to the Roanoke Hospital and the Roanoke\n         Relief Fund, helped endow Roanoke College, gave heavily to the\n         Boy Scouts and the War Relief Clearing House, and donated\n         money to the Coal Miner's Relief Fund--even though it was\n         those very coal miners who were striking in Stone's coal\n         mines. He believed, however, that the miners' children should\n         not have to suffer for their parents' stand. The Stones also\n         gave money to support French children who had been left\n         fatherless as a result of the war. Stone, a Presbyterian,\n         donated $100.00 to the Jewish Relief Fund in 1917 to aid the\n         starving Jews in Russia displaced by the war, and also sent\n         funds to the Tuskeegee Institute.","Edward Stone's principal hobby was book collecting, and his\n         library was appraised at $50,000.00 in 1939. Among his\n         treasured pieces was a page from the original Gutenberg Bible.\n         Stone's library was considered to be the largest and\n         best-equipped privately-owned library in the state of\n         Virginia.","Stone's income fluctuated through the years. In 1917 and\n         1918, partly through stock sales, Stone declared an income of\n         $129,383.39 and $91,483.00 respectively, but 1926 was\n         considered an average year, and he declared an income of\n         $57,500.00.","Although Stone was a humanitarian and philanthropist, he\n         believed in keeping total control of his business and watched\n         his employees closely. He did not strongly oppose unionization\n         in his printing shop, but fully opposed unionization in his\n         coal mines, even using scabs to break strikes.","Stone suffered financial reversals during the Great\n         Depression but he reorganized his holdings to prevent a great\n         loss, and he weathered the Depression better than most\n         businessmen. His health had begun to fail by 1929, and by 1934\n         he was virtually bedridden. Finally, after a protracted\n         illness, Edward L. Stone died on June 3, 1938, at the age of\n         seventy-four.","A History of the Borderland Coal\n         CompanyThe Borderland Coal Company derived its name from its\n         dual location in Mingo County, West Virginia, and Pike County,\n         Kentucky, an area bordered by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy\n         River. The mines proper were located in Kentucky, and the coal\n         washers and other processing equipment were located in West\n         Virginia. The company operated from 1903 to 1934. While the\n         Borderland Coal Company was incorporated in 1903, the first\n         batch of coal was not shipped until September 1, 1904. In that\n         year J. S. Tipton, formerly the majority stockholder, resigned\n         his post as general manager of Borderland Coal and sold most\n         of his stock to Edward L. Stone. At that time Stone was\n         president of the Young Men's Investment Club which owned a\n         large number of shares in the Borderland Coal Company, and\n         thus, Stone controlled the club's activities.","The Borderland Coal Company initially owned approximately\n         1,000 acres of coal land. The company mined bituminous or soft\n         coal, and sold slack coal, used by railroads and industrial\n         concerns, egg coal, used in private furnaces, and nut coal,\n         the highest quality of bituminous coal, used in the kitchens\n         of private homes.","The Borderland Coal Company grew through the early 1900's.\n         In 1905, a second plant was opened called simply \"Operation\n         #2.\" The company declared its first stock dividend in November\n         1907, and began the construction of an electric plant,\n         cableway, conveyor, and tipple at a cost of $27,950.00. In\n         1908 a new coal washer was installed. By late 1914 the\n         Borderland Company held 3,000 acres of coal lands containing\n         an estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal. The profits of the\n         Borderland Coal Company increased from $1,250.00 in 1904 to\n         $11,243.77 in 1905, to $49,977.21 in 1908, and to $110,532.68\n         in 1910.","The amount of coal mined increased from 246 railroad\n         carloads in 1904 to 3,781 railroad carloads in 1910, and\n         expansion continued until the outbreak of World War I. The\n         coal paid a regular annual dividend averaging 15-30%. Prior to\n         1911, the Leckie Coal Company of Cleveland, Ohio, was the\n         exclusive agency for the sale of Borderland Coal. In that\n         year, however, the Borderland Coal Sales Company was formed,\n         with officers of the Borderland Coal Company doubling as\n         officials of the new company.","The town of Borderland, West Virginia, was a company town,\n         with company-owned homes, stores, school, and a church. The\n         rents in the company homes appear to have been within the\n         miners' incomes. The prices in the company stores, however,\n         were exorbitant. In fact, profits for the company store were\n         the second biggest money maker for the company in 1911,\n         totaling $11,811.78. The largest profit maker was coal, which\n         netted $91,741.07, while the sale of powder was ranked third,\n         totaling $3,165.86.","World War I created a great demand and a high prices for\n         coal, and the Borderland Coal Company prospered despite\n         difficulty finding railroad cars to transport its produce. In\n         1917, the company paid a record 60% dividend. On January 1,\n         1918, the company re-chartered itself in Virginia, and\n         patented the trademark and the name of the Borderland Coal\n         Company. The new capital stock was valued at nearly\n         $800,000.00. In November 1918 construction began on a new\n         tipple at a cost of $116,000.00. After the First World War,\n         the Borderland Coal Company experienced a decrease in both the\n         demand and the price of coal. The problem of labor and\n         unionization, however, ultimately caused the company's\n         demise.","Borderland Coal Company officials had been concerned over\n         the growth of coal mine unionization long before any major\n         trouble began. As early as 1915, L. E. Armentrout, the\n         corporation's Vice President and General Manager began using\n         \"secret service men\" to infiltrate the ranks of the miners and\n         report on any union activity. It is not known whether these\n         agents were U.S. government agents or private investigators,\n         but the latter is presumed. One of them reported on March 10,\n         1915:","I spent the entire day Monday with Emmett and Ed McKee,\n            Gus Cantrell, and Henry McKnight, all white Americans. We\n            played cards in an empty house on the Kentucky side. We had\n            a nice fire and everything was very comfortable. We would\n            play cards until we got tired, then we would stop\n            everything and talk unionism. Gus Cantrell said that he had\n            been talking to the boys for the last year, trying to get\n            them to organize a local of the U.M.W. of A. He said that\n            there was plenty of good, solid union men and that there\n            were also a lot of rotten scabs here. That he got into a\n            conversation with George McCormick, a white man, and\n            McCormick told him that he didn't believe in the union and\n            that he didn't want anything to do with the U.M.W. of A. .\n            . . I told Cantrell that I would be willing to help\n            organize the local. He said, \"Well, the work is picking up\n            now and we will wait until the boys get a good pay day,\n            then we will put this thing through.\"","Borderland Coal Company successfully resisted unionization\n         in the years before World War I. Wartime regulations prevented\n         strikes and hindered unionization, but after the war many\n         miners felt that it was time to air their grievances. Miners\n         disagreed over specific demands, but most felt that grave\n         inequalities existed in the rates for day workers established\n         by the Bituminous Coal Commission. The miners requested that a\n         conference be held but this request was turned down by the\n         Commission. Dissatisfaction became more pronounced, and during\n         the middle of July 1920 the miners in some of the subdistricts\n         walked out in an unauthorized strike. Shutdowns spread to\n         Indiana and Illinois. President Woodrow Wilson intervened and\n         told the miners that if they returned to work a grievance\n         committee would be formed. The miners returned to work August\n         10, 1920, and the committee was set up. Management and labor\n         agreed on a wage increase and all was quiet for a while.","West Virginia was in a unique position in that most of the\n         mines in that state were non-union. The Interstate Commerce\n         Commission fixed freight rates with a \"differential\" low\n         enough that West Virginia coal would not be eliminated by\n         production from other fields closer to their market. When the\n         market for coal was good, the differential also allowed the\n         union coal fields of Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois to pay\n         the union scale of wages and still sell their coal in\n         competition with the product of non-union fields, such as\n         those in West Virginia. When the demand for coal was low and\n         prices receded, however, the differential no longer aided the\n         union fields and they began to experience an adverse effect.\n         These conditions appeared after the First World War, and as a\n         result operators of unionized mines demanded the unionization\n         of the Wast Virginia coal fields. Thus the U.M.W. put pressure\n         on all non-union fields, including those of the Borderland\n         Coal Company. Borderland Coal Company had been fairly quiet\n         about unionization up to this time. On May 5, 1920, however,\n         L. E. Armentrout had issued the following notice:","TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE BORDERLAND\n            COAL COMPANY \n            Considerable efforts are being made to organize this\n            field and certain advantages are being held out to some men\n            showing the advisability of belonging to the Union. \n            This is a free country and this company is not going\n            to dictate to its employees whether they shall or shall not\n            join the Union, but for your information and for the\n            information of your friends, we wish to state positively\n            that no Union man will be employed by this company, and if\n            you find that it is to your interest to join the Union, we\n            would suggest that you arrange to move out and call at the\n            office and we will be glad to settle with you. This will\n            save you as well as the company further trouble, but we\n            sincerely hope that the pleasant relations between the\n            Company and the men will continue, and that each and every\n            one of you will continue in our employ. \n            Yours very truly, \n            L. E. Armentrout, \n            Manager","By late May, 1920 the situation had become acute.\n         Armentrout wrote to James P. Woods, president of the\n         Borderland Coal Company:","The organizers have just about put us out of business at\n            both plants . . . We have a good many men who have not\n            joined the Union, but these agitators are intimidating them\n            and have them so scared they won't attempt to try to work.\n            I will have a conference with the West Virginia attorneys\n            today to see if I cannot get a temporary injunction, or\n            probably prosecution for these intimidators. \n            We have three Deputy Sheriffs in Kentucky and expect\n            two more in today. We have both plants pretty well policed\n            at night, but still some of the intimidators slip through\n            the mines and get to some of the men. . . \n            Now that the primary is over, we believe that\n            Unionism will die out. . . . In fact, no Union cards have\n            been issued and for the past two or three days they have\n            not been able to locate the man who has been giving them\n            orders on the stores. Some of them (the fired Union Men)\n            have already remarked that they could not support their\n            families on $7.00 to $8.00 a week, and they hated to go to\n            bed at night when their children were crying for something\n            to eat.","Unionism, however, did not die out. Union \"agitators\" saw\n         to that no coal could be mined at the Borderland Company's\n         coal fields. In a letter to Stone dated July 6, 1920,\n         Armentrout stated that he was able to get \"very little action\n         from the Governor of West Virginia. . .I just finished talking\n         to Governor Morrow's office in Frankfort, Kentucky, and the\n         home guards will likely entrain today. They will likely have\n         machine guns so if that they get in according to promise, we\n         think that conditions will improve very rapidly.\"","The Borderland Coal Company kept its promise and\n         dispossessed hundreds of its employees. Fired from their jobs\n         and ousted from their homes, they were forced to live in\n         tents. In a union pamphlet entitled \"Borderland and Bullets\"\n         these men told of the horrible indignities forced on company\n         employees who joined the union. The purpose of the pamphlet\n         was to oppose the re-election of Colonel James P. Woods,\n         president of the Borderland Coal Company, to the U. S. House\n         of Representatives. Woods ran for re-election in the sixth\n         Virginia district claiming that he had been always fair to the\n         working man, and he won.","The situation at Borderland soon deteriorated into\n         violence. A pamphlet dated \"winter, 1920\" and entitled \n         Hell with the Lid Off in Mingo\n         County, West Virginia,gives an account of drunken\n         company guards wounding a number of workers by firing into\n         their tents. On May 12, 1920, Edward Stone, chairman of the\n         board of the Borderland Coal Company, had examined an\n         advertisement for the Thompson sub-machine gun but had decided\n         that \"the gun is not sufficient for our needs at the mine.\" On\n         May 16 Governor John J. Cornwell of West Virginia sent a\n         telegram to the War Department in Washington requesting that\n         Federal troops be sent to the Tug River District, where\n         Borderland Coal Company was located. There had been fighting\n         in the Tug River District for nearly four days. Secretary of\n         War John Weeks, basing his decision on reports from one of his\n         staff officers who had visited the area, decided that federal\n         troops were not needed. Four days later Governor Cornwell\n         declared martial law in West Virginia. Militiamen from both\n         Kentucky and West Virginia were involved in the fighting.","In the summer of 1921 the U. M. W. began its famous \"summer\n         march\" which precipitated guerilla warfare between the\n         pro-union and anti-union forces. On June 29, Governor Cornwell\n         ordered the citizens of West Virginia to take up arms and\n         defend themselves against the pro-unionists. The papers of the\n         Borderland Coal Company include lists of casualties written on\n         scrap paper, such as \"Stone Mountain, 5 Baldwin men and 4\n         citizens killed (one the mayor), 2 Feltz Bros. killed, 2\n         military companies there, 2 on the way.\" In April 1922 the\n         coal miners' grievances came to a head and they struck. They\n         demanded a continuation of the system of bargaining and\n         contract, including the \"checkoff,\" which is a list devised to\n         check on payment of union dues. In addition to demanding\n         stable wage rates, the miners demanded a six-hour day and a\n         five-day week. These increased hours would mean steady\n         employment, one of the miners' main goals.","The strike apparently took some pressure off the Borderland\n         Coal Company because after 1922 there is little or nothing in\n         the collection regarding unionization. Company officials had\n         managed to avoid unionization of their mines but had caused\n         the company much damage in the process. Bitter feelings\n         prevailed after the strike. A letter from L. E. Armentrout to\n         the Borderland Coal Company dated 1923 states:","Gentlemen, \n            My attention has just been called to the enclosed\n            blotter bearing the union label. It has been the policy of\n            this company for several years, in fact, ever since we have\n            been in business, not to recognize any Union whatever. We\n            spent, or lost, something like $300,000.00 fighting the\n            United Mine Workers here in 1920 and 1921, and also have\n            some injunctions against them. \n            For your information, please do not place any more\n            printing with any Union shop, and if you have any more of\n            these blotters, tear them up or dispose of them otherwise\n            as it is inconsistent with our policy, and we positively\n            will not stand for it.","While much of the collection regards labor struggles, there\n         is little material regarding immigrant labor although 40% of\n         the workers were immigrants. West Virginia was a sparsely\n         populated state at this time, and immigrants were needed to\n         supplement the labor in their mines. The first constitution of\n         the state provided for the appointment of an immigration\n         officer whose duties were to advertise the attractions of West\n         Virginia throughout Europe and make arrangements with\n         industries to supply transportation for foreign workmen. Of\n         the 80,877 workers employed in the West Virginia coal mines in\n         1915, 49,753 were American-born (37,918 white and 11,835\n         black) and 31,124 were foreign-born. Italians made up the\n         largest percentage of the immigrant labor force, about one\n         third of all foreigners employed in the mines while Hungarians\n         comprised the second-most prevalent nationality, approximately\n         one-sixth of the foreign born total.","The Borderland Coal Company never fully recovered from the\n         trouble that paralyzed its mines in 1920. The 1920's were a\n         very depressed period for the mining industry in general and\n         the depression of 1929 brought prices to an all time low. Coal\n         production fell precipitously from 1927-1933 although there\n         seemed to be a slight upturn that year. In 1927, L. E.\n         Armentrout resigned from the company and a year later the\n         Borderland Coal Sales Company was dissolved due to lack of\n         business. The Norfolk and Chesapeake Coal Company became\n         exclusive agents for the sale of Borderland coal. At a meeting\n         of the Borderland Coal Company's board of directors in 1929,\n         it was stated that since the market for coal was so poor, it\n         hardly paid to keep the mines going. The Borderland Coal\n         Company mines were only worked four days during the entire\n         month of May 1932. In a letter from Edward L. Stone to a\n         Borderland Coal Company creditor, Stone wrote that as the\n         Borderland Coal Company did not have the money to pay its\n         debts, all creditors would have to wait for their money, and\n         that he hoped that he could avoid declaring the Borderland\n         Coal Company bankrupt. In 1934 Stone received a letter from a\n         stockholder consoling him for having to \"lose Borderland\n         Coal.\" Apparently the company was then out of business.","The demise of the Borderland Coal Company was the result of\n         broad national trends; the product of their mines was of high\n         quality, and in good supply. The problem of labor and\n         unionization paralyzed the Borderland Coal Company. Lack of\n         production in the mines meant that the Borderland Coal Company\n         could not pay dividends which affected their stockholders. The\n         bad mining conditions, a lack of demand for coal and low\n         market prices made it impossible for the Borderland Coal\n         Company to recover. The return of the coal-rich region of\n         Alsace-Lorraine to France meant that our allies no longer\n         needed American coal. Domestic demand increased, but it did\n         not compensate for decreased industrial use. The switch to\n         alternative forms of energy such as oil, also damaged the coal\n         industry. Although prosperity returned to the rest of the\n         country, the coal industry never totally recovered, and the\n         Borderland Coal Company was one of the victims.","Officers of the Borderland Coal Company: Edward Lee Stone\n         --President ca. 1907-1919, Chairman of the Board 1919-ca.\n         1934; James P. Woods (attorney at law --U. S. Representative,\n         6th Virginia District) --Vice President ca. 1905-1922,\n         President 1922-1932; L. E. Armentrout --Manager ca. 1905-1915,\n         Vice President and Manager ca. 1915-1927; Ernest B. Fishburn\n         --Secretary-Treasurer ca. 1905-1930","Officers of the Borderland Coal Sales Company: L. E.\n         Armentrout --President; Edward Lee Stone --Vice President;\n         James P. Woods --second Vice President; R. N. Osborne,\n         Jr.--Secretary (discharged in 1924); W. W.\n         Austin--Secretary.","A History of the Stone Printing and\n         Manufacturing CompanyThe Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia, was established in 1883 as the Bell Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company. John P. Bell of Lynchburg served as\n         president, and Samuel J. Fields of Abington, Virginia, served\n         as manager. Edward L. Stone, the eventual chairman of the\n         board, was then employed as a journeyman printer and pressman.\n         In 1885, Stone succeeded Fields as the company's manager, and\n         his brother, Albert A. Stone, joined the business.","At this time the company occupied a small site on Commerce\n         Street in Roanoke, an area about twenty by twenty-five feet.\n         In 1889 the plant was seriously damaged by fire, and within a\n         few months, the company moved to larger quarters on the second\n         and third floors of the Gale Building on Jefferson Street.\n         Shortly thereafter, the controlling interest was purchased by\n         Edward L. Stone, with the remainder of the stock being\n         purchased by J. B. Fishburn and Albert A. Stone.","In 1892, the name of the company was changed to the Stone\n         Printing and Manufacturing Company, and the company occupied a\n         new, three-story building at 116 North Jefferson Street. In\n         1896, a duplicate building was added on the north side; in a\n         few years another addition was placed at the rear. The company\n         built another addition in 1902 but five years later the old\n         structure was torn down and a new two-stories building, 210 x\n         110 feet, was completed. The new structure gave the Stone\n         Printing Company 50,000 square feet of space, which is about\n         100 times the floor space originally occupied on Commerce\n         Street. The company today occupies the same site on Jefferson\n         Street.","In 1883 the capital stock of the company was $5,000.00, and\n         in 1900, it was increased to $50,000.00. In 1910 the capital\n         stock had grown to $350,000.00. All of the stock increases\n         were taken, with one exception, by the original stockholders.\n         Sales grew from $84,371.00 in 1900 to $179,433.78 in 1905, and\n         from $253,781.15 in 1909 to a high of $608,174.36 in 1920.","Stone had considered selling his printing company to a\n         British syndicate in 1912. He felt, however, that business was\n         good and getting better and eventually decided to retain\n         control. By 1920 the Stone Printing Company had customers in\n         half the states in the union and in some foreign countries.\n         Between 1920 and 1929, however, sales showed a steady decline.\n         In 1929 they fell to $399,701.43 and declined throughout the\n         depression.","The Stone Printing Company's most important business came\n         from railroads as the company printed tariff and rate\n         schedules as well as tickets. Since the railroad rates changed\n         rapidly during the early 1900's, railroad printing was very\n         lucrative. The principal railroad customer and in fact, the\n         largest customer, of the Stone Printing Company was the\n         Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1910 the Norfolk and Western\n         Railroad accounted for $85,652.60 in sales. Combined with the\n         sales to other railroads in 1910, the total of railroad sales\n         was approximately $193,000.00 of a total of $339,678.92 --well\n         over half of the total sales of the Stone Printing\n         Company.","Commercial printing comprised the second largest source of\n         the Stone Printing Company's business, accounting for\n         $135,110.32 of a total $608,174.36 in 1920. The fourth largest\n         amount of business, after the Norfolk and Western Railway,\n         other railroads, and commercial printing, was school and\n         college printing. The Stone Printing Company printed the\n         yearbooks for the University of Virginia, the Georgia\n         Institute of Technology, the University of Mississippi,\n         Randolph-Macon College, Hollins College, Virginia Polytechnic\n         Institute, and others.","The profit margin in printing often was small, and thus\n         costs had to be carefully controlled. Edward L. Stone was a\n         commissioner of the American Printers Cost Commission which\n         kept a close watch on printing costs and tried to keep them\n         down. Another serious problem that bothered Stone Printing\n         Company was unionization. As most Roanoke printing shops,\n         Stone Printing Company was an open shop where either union or\n         non-union people could be employed. The company's officers did\n         not penalize or prevent workers from joining the union. The\n         International Typographical Union, however, put pressure on\n         Edward Stone to turn his establishment into a closed shop,\n         that is, a shop that would hire only union members, pay union\n         wages, and abide by union rules. Paying union wages did not\n         trouble Stone because he already paid more than the union\n         scale in most cases. For example, in 1905 when the union scale\n         was $13.50 per week, Stone pointed out that while two of his\n         employees received less and one received the union wage, over\n         forty workers received between $15.00 and $25.00 per week.\n         Stone felt it folly to pay all workers the same because, he\n         said, \"some are so much better than others.\"","Edward Stone's paternalistic attitude toward his employees\n         is reflected in a collection of letters exchanged with his\n         workers. Forced to fire an employee who lied about being able\n         to work on a printing press, Stone lent him the money to go to\n         printing school, and re-hired him when he had learned the\n         trade. Another worker left the company without notice, heading\n         home to Lexington, Virginia. When the employee needed money to\n         return to Roanoke, Stone lent it to him with the understanding\n         that the employee would never again leave without asking\n         Stone's permission. Another employee left Stone without notice\n         to work for another printing firm, but when the employee\n         wanted his old job back, Stone gave it to him. Stone\n         frequently lent money to his employees, and did not press them\n         for repayment.","Many of the union's rules, however bothered Stone. Among\n         the ones he objected to were (1) in all cases when it became\n         necessary to reduce the working force of an office, the last\n         person hired should be the first dropped; (2) in machine\n         composition, all work must be time work and no piece work\n         should be allowed; (3) no member of the International\n         Typographical Union should engage in a speed contest either by\n         hand composition or on machines, and violation of this rule\n         was to be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00, or by\n         suspension; (4) an eight hour day (Stone Printing had a 9 to\n         9-1/2 hour day); and (5) no one holding active membership in a\n         local union should sign any individual or private contract\n         with any employer, agreeing to work for any stated time,\n         length, or conditions as the union alone was to have the power\n         to contract for conditions, wages, and hours. This fifth\n         stipulation bothered Stone the most for he firmly believed\n         that an employee should perform whatever duty Stone demanded\n         of him.","On November 20, 1907, there was a union strike in Roanoke.\n         The union men employed by the Stone Printing Company walked\n         out, and the union formed a picket line in front of the Stone\n         Printing Company. Stone wrote to Joel Cuthin, Mayor of\n         Roanoke: \"We have never been opposed to the union, but we have\n         objected to having them run our business, unless they acquired\n         it by ownership.\" The union put pressure on the Stone Printing\n         Company. A memo to Edward Stone from Albert Stone dated 1915\n         told of some Stone Printing Company material being returned by\n         certain Roanoke merchants because they did not bear the union\n         label. The amount of material returned, however, was very\n         small. The union pressure placed on Stone was generally\n         peaceful and there was no violence or destruction. After the\n         unsuccessful strike, Stone took back all of his union men.","After 1920 the company's sales and profits declined. In\n         1927, Albert Stone, who had assumed the presidency of the\n         company, commissioned Ernst and Ernst, financial analysts, to\n         examine the operation of Stone Printing and make\n         recommendations for improving business. The analysts found\n         Stone Printing to be an innovative company which sought and\n         found new markets such as school and college printing and the\n         printing of calendars, and which had sound leadership. Ernst\n         and Ernst felt that it was a change in economic conditions,\n         not the company itself, that caused the company's problems.\n         Competition had changed and grown in intensity by 1920, making\n         the ability to sell most important. The analysts recommended\n         the creation of a sales department coupled with more\n         aggressive selling techniques.","Later, Albert Stone, Jr., Edward Stone's nephew, claimed\n         that it was the reluctance of the Stone Printing Company to\n         cut prices during the depression of 1919-1922 that caused the\n         company's problems. He claimed that by the time the company\n         did cut its prices, Stone Printing had lost many of its most\n         valued customers, and suggested a closer watch of costs\n         coupled with an expansion of the calendar line. Although these\n         suggestions were followed, business did not improve.","When the Great Depression hit in 1929, business worsened.\n         Loyal customers and a solid financial base kept the Stone\n         Printing Company from bankruptcy. Edward Stone's health was\n         failing by 1929, and most of the company's affairs were passed\n         on to his brother Albert. In a letter from Edward Stone to the\n         board of directors in 1930, he wrote: \n         the years operations to date, with vastly improved\n            selling efforts, has only brought us the same volume of\n            business that we had last year but the increased\n            organization expense, incident to this extra selling\n            effort, and the extraordinary competition in the matter of\n            price, has prevented us from obtaining prices that we\n            should really obtain for our products.Edward Stone recommended a reduction in salaries\n         across the board from the president on down, and layoffs of\n         certain personnel.","When Franklin D. Roosevelt first initiated his New Deal\n         program in 1933, Edward Stone was apprehensive. In a letter\n         dated July 26, 1933, he wrote: \n         We would like the best in the world to go along with the\n            National Industrial Recovery Act, and be able to wire\n            President Roosevelt an affirmative reply in connection with\n            the agreement addressed \"To Every Employer.\" \n            But to do so, with my modest knowledge of economics,\n            would mean arbitrary action on our part, with a \"blind\n            faith\" that we do not possess. \n            If we still further reduce the working hours to 35\n            per week (as the New Deal suggested) the increased cost of\n            production reaches the geometric progression stage, with\n            the result that our losses on current contracts, which we\n            see no way of passing along to our customers until we would\n            actually see no way of meeting our payroll or meeting our\n            bills, would mean disaster. \n            Listening in over the radio last night I understand\n            that 5,000 or more telegrams had been received by the\n            President indicating unconditional acceptance of the\n            Agreement. It is quite possible that we should do likewise,\n            regardless, just as we offered ourselves, body and\n            resources, in wartime. \n            I am giving expression to these thoughts even though\n            I feel the \"patriotic\" thing for us to do may be to go\n            ahead, \"blindly,\" and in spite of our objections or reasons\n            for not doing so, and sign the agreement. \n            Very Sincerely, \n            Edward L. Stone \n            Chairman of the BoardClearly, Stone expected no miracles, but he went\n         along with the N.I.R.A. and generally supported Roosevelt.\n         There are references to increasing business by 1937.\n         Correspondence ends the following year with Edward Stone's\n         death. The Stone Printing Company, however, is in business to\n         this very day.","These papers fill 455 special four-inch Hollinger storage\n         boxes (ca. 150 linear feet) and span the years 1895-1937.\n         There are three major series: Edward L. Stone's papers re his\n         personal life and diversified business, professional, and\n         civic concerns; papers concerned with his principal business,\n         the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia; and those papers concerned with the Borderland Coal\n         Company of West Virginia and Kentucky of which Stone was the\n         principal officer for many years. Because these series\n         basically are composed of Stone's personal papers, and because\n         there are interrelationships between material in one series\n         and that in another, the series have been maintained in the\n         boxes in the order in which they were found.","The papers are rich in material for many types of studies.\n         Because Stone's major concern was his printing business, there\n         is a great amount of material about that business, its labor\n         problems, economic problems, its professional associations,\n         relationships with its customers --especially the railroads\n         --and so on. Because Mr. Stone collected medieval manuscripts\n         and examples of fine printing that formed a great private\n         library, there is, in his personal papers, a good deal of\n         correspondence and material about this special interest. His\n         personal papers also contain considerable material about his\n         diversified business and civic interests. And the records of\n         the Borderland Coal Company--which Mr. Stone operated either\n         as president or as chairman of the board for twenty-seven\n         years--are rich in information concerning this vital industry,\n         its periods of economic success and decline, its relationships\n         with the railroads that moved its products, and its labor\n         problems.","See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.","English"],"collection_title_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"collection_ssim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers \n \n 1895-1937"],"level_ssm":["collection"],"level_ssim":["Collection"],"unitid_ssm":["382"],"unitid_tesim":["382"],"repository_ssm":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"repository_ssim":["University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept."],"access_terms_ssm":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"acqinfo_ssim":["Before his death in 1938, the University of Virginia\n            Library had been negotiating with Edward L. Stone for the\n            purchase of his library. Mr. Stone had donated a number of\n            fine books, and some manuscripts, to the University of\n            Virginia Library, and its staff knew the value of his fine\n            private library. The tentative purchase price settled upon\n            was low principally because Mr. Stone wished his library to\n            remain intact. Unfortunately, Mr. Stone died before\n            negotiations were complete, but the Library concluded the\n            sale with his heirs in August 1938. As a result of this\n            purchase, the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of\n            Roanoke presented to the Library the files of\n            correspondence and other papers both of Mr. Stone's\n            extensive business interests and of his personal affairs.\n            The collection consisted of 207 letter boxes and\n            twenty-five \"large packing cases\" when it arrived at the\n            Library on August 11, 1939."],"has_online_content_ssim":["false"],"physdesc_tesim":["This collection\n         consists of approximately 500,000 items."],"accessrestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eStored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections. \n\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"accessrestrict_heading_ssm":["Access Restrictions"],"accessrestrict_tesim":["Stored off-site. Users must request boxes 48 hours in advance of desired use. Neither drop-in nor next-day requests can be fulfilled. For additional information, contact Special Collections."],"arrangement_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eAfter arrival at the University, the collection was placed\n         in the stack areas of the then division of Rare Books and\n         Manuscripts of the Library, and was shelved in close proximity\n         to another large collection received only a year before, that\n         of the Low Moor Iron Company. The two comprised the largest\n         group of material in the division at the time, a group that,\n         unfortunately, was rarely used by researchers as there were no\n         finding aids to the mass, and interested researchers were\n         intimidated by the problems of research in the papers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe collections remained in the stacks until 1958 when\n         expansion space in the division's storage area was reduced to\n         a minimum by the successful collecting program of the\n         intervening years. A review of the collections and their use\n         showed that the Stone collection and the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were rarely consulted, and it was decided to move them\n         out of the division's quarters to provide storage space for\n         collections that were being used by researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eSpace was located in the attic of a student dormitory, and\n         the division prepared the papers for long-term storage by\n         removing them from the old letter boxes in which they had\n         arrived. Each bundle of papers was placed between sheets of\n         gray, newspaper-storage cardboard sheets; the spine titles of\n         the old letter boxes were copied onto the cardboard sheets,\n         and the bundle was wrapped in brown paper, tied up with\n         string, and numbered in a coded sequence.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe collections remained in the attic of Lefevre House\n         until the fall of 1976 when, after the receipt of a grant from\n         the National Endowment for the Humanities for the processing\n         of the two collections, they were transported to the Alderman\n         Library building once more In the Library's receiving room,\n         the bundles were cleaned in the dust hood, untied and\n         unwrapped, and the contents transferred into gray, Hollinger\n         storage boxes before transfer into the storage areas of the\n         Manuscripts Department for processing. The coded numbers on\n         the bundles were recorded but proved to be of no use in\n         restoring order to the papers, badly out of sequence from\n         their many moves over the years. Nor did the spine titles and\n         dates from the original letters boxes prove to be of any\n         particular use in organizing the collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOnce processing work was completed at the end of the summer\n         of 1978, the Stone Papers were transferred back to the\n         dormitory attic as space in the Alderman Library building\n         remained short, and it was felt that adequate service on the\n         Stone Papers could be maintained from the attic now that a\n         guide to the papers had been prepared. (N.B. The Stone papers\n         were removed from the dormitory attic and transferred to the\n         University Library's high-density remote storage facility\n         following its opening in the mid-1990s.)\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the lists of box\n         contents that follow will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAs previously noted, the Stone papers were subjected to a\n         number of moves before processing began, and, unfortunately,\n         there seems to have been little organization of the papers in\n         Mr. Stone's files in his Roanoke office. Presumably, he and\n         his staff could locate material that was needed from the\n         files, but at the time that processing began in the fall of\n         1976, no discernible scheme of organization could be\n         determined.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to the\n         dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of useful\n         organization. Next, the spine titles of the original letter\n         boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the gray\n         cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory attic), but\n         they, too, proved useless.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThese steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors on\n         the collection, the new student processors were instructed to\n         begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents of the\n         collection. During this inventory, old folders were replaced\n         with acid-free ones, and the original folder headings were\n         copied onto the new ones. Some removal of papers clips was\n         accomplished, and the materials were reviewed and notes were\n         taken for the guide.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe processors found that Mr. Stone's papers were comprised\n         of three series. One was devoted to his personal affairs, and\n         contained material about his diverse business interests\n         outside his two major ones, and about his civic and\n         professional interests, as well as papers from his private\n         life. The second series contained the papers from his major\n         business and \"first love\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company of Roanoke; and the third series included a wealth of\n         material about the Borderland Coal Company, an enterprise that\n         Mr. Stone served for twenty-seven years, first as president\n         and later, as chairman of the board.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eFor a long time, we considered separating the three series\n         of papers, and the processors evolved a good system of colored\n         slips clipped to the boxes to identify material from each\n         series contained in a box. However, as they neared the end of\n         their inventory, the processors became convinced, and argued\n         successfully that the series should not be separated.\n         Basically, all these papers are Mr. Stone's private papers as\n         he was the major stockholder in the Stone Printing Company and\n         it was very much a personal operation. There are\n         interrelationships between material that was found standing in\n         different folders in the same box, and the processors\n         correctly feared that drastic reorganization would destroy\n         those relationships. Thus, we decided to accept their\n         argument, and the box contents were allowed to remain as we\n         found them.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eA certain amount of movement of boxes within the collection\n         probably would ease use of it. But what processing was\n         accomplished on this project took far longer than had been\n         anticipated, and there was no time in the late spring of 1978,\n         when the processors had to complete their work with the\n         project, to undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they\n         stand in the order in which we found them at the beginning of\n         the project.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAs has been stated above, the three series of papers in\n         this collection (Stone Personal; Borderland Coal Co.; and\n         Stone Printing and Mfg. Co.) have not been physically\n         separated and are scattered throughout the collection.\n         However, in the container listing which follows the three\n         series have been separated. Therefore, the listing for the\n         Edward L. Stone Personal Papers series begins with Box 11 of\n         the collection because that is the first box in which Stone's\n         personal papers can be found. (Boxes 1-10 appear in the\n         listing for the Borderland Coal Co. series.) This also means\n         that if a box contains material from more than one series it\n         will have more than one entry in the listing, so that to find\n         a complete listing of a particular box a researcher might need\n         to look at the listing for each of the three series. In\n         addition, some of the box entries in the listing are slightly\n         out of order, so that if a box appears to have no entry or\n         only a partial entry, in a particular series the entry is\n         sometimes picked up on the next page of the listing.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eListings of oversize material are located at the end of the\n         listing for each series.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"arrangement_heading_ssm":["Organization"],"arrangement_tesim":["After arrival at the University, the collection was placed\n         in the stack areas of the then division of Rare Books and\n         Manuscripts of the Library, and was shelved in close proximity\n         to another large collection received only a year before, that\n         of the Low Moor Iron Company. The two comprised the largest\n         group of material in the division at the time, a group that,\n         unfortunately, was rarely used by researchers as there were no\n         finding aids to the mass, and interested researchers were\n         intimidated by the problems of research in the papers.","The collections remained in the stacks until 1958 when\n         expansion space in the division's storage area was reduced to\n         a minimum by the successful collecting program of the\n         intervening years. A review of the collections and their use\n         showed that the Stone collection and the Low Moor Iron Company\n         papers were rarely consulted, and it was decided to move them\n         out of the division's quarters to provide storage space for\n         collections that were being used by researchers.","Space was located in the attic of a student dormitory, and\n         the division prepared the papers for long-term storage by\n         removing them from the old letter boxes in which they had\n         arrived. Each bundle of papers was placed between sheets of\n         gray, newspaper-storage cardboard sheets; the spine titles of\n         the old letter boxes were copied onto the cardboard sheets,\n         and the bundle was wrapped in brown paper, tied up with\n         string, and numbered in a coded sequence.","The collections remained in the attic of Lefevre House\n         until the fall of 1976 when, after the receipt of a grant from\n         the National Endowment for the Humanities for the processing\n         of the two collections, they were transported to the Alderman\n         Library building once more In the Library's receiving room,\n         the bundles were cleaned in the dust hood, untied and\n         unwrapped, and the contents transferred into gray, Hollinger\n         storage boxes before transfer into the storage areas of the\n         Manuscripts Department for processing. The coded numbers on\n         the bundles were recorded but proved to be of no use in\n         restoring order to the papers, badly out of sequence from\n         their many moves over the years. Nor did the spine titles and\n         dates from the original letters boxes prove to be of any\n         particular use in organizing the collection.","Once processing work was completed at the end of the summer\n         of 1978, the Stone Papers were transferred back to the\n         dormitory attic as space in the Alderman Library building\n         remained short, and it was felt that adequate service on the\n         Stone Papers could be maintained from the attic now that a\n         guide to the papers had been prepared. (N.B. The Stone papers\n         were removed from the dormitory attic and transferred to the\n         University Library's high-density remote storage facility\n         following its opening in the mid-1990s.)","The word \"organization\" is used here with considerable\n         diffidence, for any researcher studying the lists of box\n         contents that follow will realize quickly that there is no\n         organization in the usual sense of the word.","As previously noted, the Stone papers were subjected to a\n         number of moves before processing began, and, unfortunately,\n         there seems to have been little organization of the papers in\n         Mr. Stone's files in his Roanoke office. Presumably, he and\n         his staff could locate material that was needed from the\n         files, but at the time that processing began in the fall of\n         1976, no discernible scheme of organization could be\n         determined.","The first step was to review the series of coded numbers\n         placed on the bundles of papers before they were moved to the\n         dormitory attic, but these did not provide any sort of useful\n         organization. Next, the spine titles of the original letter\n         boxes were reviewed (they had been copied onto the gray\n         cardboard sheets before the move to the dormitory attic), but\n         they, too, proved useless.","These steps having provided no scheme, and after a\n         considerable hiatus due to a turnover in student processors on\n         the collection, the new student processors were instructed to\n         begin a box-by-box inventory of the contents of the\n         collection. During this inventory, old folders were replaced\n         with acid-free ones, and the original folder headings were\n         copied onto the new ones. Some removal of papers clips was\n         accomplished, and the materials were reviewed and notes were\n         taken for the guide.","The processors found that Mr. Stone's papers were comprised\n         of three series. One was devoted to his personal affairs, and\n         contained material about his diverse business interests\n         outside his two major ones, and about his civic and\n         professional interests, as well as papers from his private\n         life. The second series contained the papers from his major\n         business and \"first love\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company of Roanoke; and the third series included a wealth of\n         material about the Borderland Coal Company, an enterprise that\n         Mr. Stone served for twenty-seven years, first as president\n         and later, as chairman of the board.","For a long time, we considered separating the three series\n         of papers, and the processors evolved a good system of colored\n         slips clipped to the boxes to identify material from each\n         series contained in a box. However, as they neared the end of\n         their inventory, the processors became convinced, and argued\n         successfully that the series should not be separated.\n         Basically, all these papers are Mr. Stone's private papers as\n         he was the major stockholder in the Stone Printing Company and\n         it was very much a personal operation. There are\n         interrelationships between material that was found standing in\n         different folders in the same box, and the processors\n         correctly feared that drastic reorganization would destroy\n         those relationships. Thus, we decided to accept their\n         argument, and the box contents were allowed to remain as we\n         found them.","A certain amount of movement of boxes within the collection\n         probably would ease use of it. But what processing was\n         accomplished on this project took far longer than had been\n         anticipated, and there was no time in the late spring of 1978,\n         when the processors had to complete their work with the\n         project, to undertake a mass movement of material. Thus, they\n         stand in the order in which we found them at the beginning of\n         the project.","As has been stated above, the three series of papers in\n         this collection (Stone Personal; Borderland Coal Co.; and\n         Stone Printing and Mfg. Co.) have not been physically\n         separated and are scattered throughout the collection.\n         However, in the container listing which follows the three\n         series have been separated. Therefore, the listing for the\n         Edward L. Stone Personal Papers series begins with Box 11 of\n         the collection because that is the first box in which Stone's\n         personal papers can be found. (Boxes 1-10 appear in the\n         listing for the Borderland Coal Co. series.) This also means\n         that if a box contains material from more than one series it\n         will have more than one entry in the listing, so that to find\n         a complete listing of a particular box a researcher might need\n         to look at the listing for each of the three series. In\n         addition, some of the box entries in the listing are slightly\n         out of order, so that if a box appears to have no entry or\n         only a partial entry, in a particular series the entry is\n         sometimes picked up on the next page of the listing.","Listings of oversize material are located at the end of the\n         listing for each series."],"bioghist_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cemph render=\"bold\"\u003eBiography of Edward L. Stone\u003c/emph\u003e\u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eEdward Lee Stone was born on September 15, 1864, in\n         Liberty (now Bedford) Virginia, the son of John Harmon Stone\n         and Mary Witt Stone. He was reared in very modest\n         circumstances, and received no more than an elementary school\n         education, yet he became one of the wealthiest and most\n         prominent citizens in the state of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's career in the printing business is typical\n         of the fabled American dream. At ten years of age, having\n         recently lost his father, Stone was in the boys' playground of\n         his school. J. R. Guy, the editor of the Bedford Sentinel\n         newspaper, came to the playground looking for William Fellers,\n         Stone's cousin. When Stone asked Mr. Guy what he wanted with\n         William, Guy replied \"I want him to carry the papers. Stone\n         said, \"I'll carry 'em' for you.\" After being a delivery boy\n         for the Sentinel, Stone learned to set type and worked\n         evenings after school for five cents an evening; twenty-five\n         cents on Saturday. Less than a year later, economics\n         necessitated that he quit school to pursue his job full time.\n         Stone learned his lessons well, and showed enthusiasm in every\n         phase of his work. Young Stone worked alongside a window, and\n         enjoyed nothing better than to jump out into the street and\n         scrap with some passing youngster, returning to his duties\n         after the fun was over.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone was given more and more duties which he performed to\n         this employer's total satisfaction. At the age of sixteen, for\n         some now-inexplicable reason, Stone left the newspaper\n         business to work for a mercantile establishment, He soon grew\n         bored, however, and returned to printer's ink. This time he\n         worked for the Democrat, a weekly newspaper in Buchanan,\n         Virginia, then a thriving town at the intersection of the\n         James River and the Kanawha Canal.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOnce, at the age of sixteen, Stone was entrusted with\n         getting out an entire edition of the paper by himself. The\n         editor was in court and many workmen were out sick. Stone and\n         an assistant set type at breakneck speed beginning at 7:15\n         A.M. and had the entire seven-column paper completed by noon\n         --an amazing feat. Stone was out playing ball by 2 P.M. and\n         earned a $5.00 bonus from his boss, editor William J. Boyd. In\n         1882, Boyd informed Stone that he was going to open a printing\n         office in Roanoke, Virginia, then a small town. Boyd wanted\n         Stone to be manager, and on July 20th, 1882, both men arrived\n         in Roanoke. A place could not be found for the new enterprise\n         however, and both returned to Buchanan. Stone became\n         disillusioned with the small scope of opportunities Buchanan\n         provided, and, with an ambition to \"become somebody\" in the\n         printing business, set out for Lynchburg. Landing in Lynchburg\n         in January 1883 he applied for work on the News and, after a\n         few days, secured a position as compositor. Here he remained\n         until March, achieving considerable reputation as a fast\n         compositor, yet not satisfied. Stone really longed for a\n         position in the printing business. John P. Bell offered Stone\n         a minor position in a branch office he had planned to open in\n         Roanoke. The position was, in most respects, inferior to the\n         one he had already held, but Stone gladly took it. He worked\n         hard, and showed superior business ability which impressed Mr.\n         Bell so much that when the manager of the business died in\n         1885 his position was offered to Stone. The position was not\n         offered without some misgivings because of Stone's youth (he\n         was only twenty-one) and his lack of business experience.\n         Stone, however, did such a good job as manager that Bell\n         realized that he had made the right choice. Stone eventually\n         gained control of the business and became president of the\n         company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eHis position was secure enough that in 1890, he married\n         Miss Minnie Fishburn, daughter of J. A. Fishburn, a prominent\n         business man of Roanoke. The couple had one child, Mary\n         Katherine Stone.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's printing business grew in size and wealth.\n         By 1920 it was acknowledged by many to be the best-equipped\n         printing corporation in the south, and one of the largest as\n         well. He had many other business interests. He was president\n         of the Borderland Coal Corporation, president of the Virginia\n         Bridge and Iron Company, vice president and later president of\n         the Walker Foundry and Machine Company, chairman of the First\n         National Exchange Bank, and president of his primary business\n         and \"first love,\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn March 1896 Stone was presented with a petition signed by\n         fourteen Roanoke business men requesting that he run for\n         mayor. Stone was very tempted, but a law stating that no one\n         in Roanoke public office would be permitted to do business\n         with the city stopped him. Stone felt that not being able to\n         do business with the city would be unfair to his stockholders.\n         Stone, a civic-minded individual, was chairman of the Roanoke\n         Community Fund in 1924, and of the City Planning and Zoning\n         Commission. He was also chairman of the war bond committee\n         during the First World War, and belonged to many societies and\n         organizations, including the American Institute of Graphic\n         Arts, the Florida State Historical Society, the Shenandoah\n         Club of Roanoke, the Country Club of Roanoke, the Roanoke Gun\n         Club, the Roanoke German Club, the Virginia Historical Society\n         (life member), the Better Printing Committee of the United\n         Typothetae of America, the Roanoke Rotary Club, the\n         International Benjamin Franklin Society of New York, and the\n         board of trustees of the Committee to Assist the Blind.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone was also an extremely charitable man. He gave\n         large sums of money to the Roanoke Hospital and the Roanoke\n         Relief Fund, helped endow Roanoke College, gave heavily to the\n         Boy Scouts and the War Relief Clearing House, and donated\n         money to the Coal Miner's Relief Fund--even though it was\n         those very coal miners who were striking in Stone's coal\n         mines. He believed, however, that the miners' children should\n         not have to suffer for their parents' stand. The Stones also\n         gave money to support French children who had been left\n         fatherless as a result of the war. Stone, a Presbyterian,\n         donated $100.00 to the Jewish Relief Fund in 1917 to aid the\n         starving Jews in Russia displaced by the war, and also sent\n         funds to the Tuskeegee Institute.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's principal hobby was book collecting, and his\n         library was appraised at $50,000.00 in 1939. Among his\n         treasured pieces was a page from the original Gutenberg Bible.\n         Stone's library was considered to be the largest and\n         best-equipped privately-owned library in the state of\n         Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone's income fluctuated through the years. In 1917 and\n         1918, partly through stock sales, Stone declared an income of\n         $129,383.39 and $91,483.00 respectively, but 1926 was\n         considered an average year, and he declared an income of\n         $57,500.00.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAlthough Stone was a humanitarian and philanthropist, he\n         believed in keeping total control of his business and watched\n         his employees closely. He did not strongly oppose unionization\n         in his printing shop, but fully opposed unionization in his\n         coal mines, even using scabs to break strikes.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone suffered financial reversals during the Great\n         Depression but he reorganized his holdings to prevent a great\n         loss, and he weathered the Depression better than most\n         businessmen. His health had begun to fail by 1929, and by 1934\n         he was virtually bedridden. Finally, after a protracted\n         illness, Edward L. Stone died on June 3, 1938, at the age of\n         seventy-four.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\u003cemph render=\"bold\"\u003eA History of the Borderland Coal\n         Company\u003c/emph\u003e\u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company derived its name from its\n         dual location in Mingo County, West Virginia, and Pike County,\n         Kentucky, an area bordered by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy\n         River. The mines proper were located in Kentucky, and the coal\n         washers and other processing equipment were located in West\n         Virginia. The company operated from 1903 to 1934. While the\n         Borderland Coal Company was incorporated in 1903, the first\n         batch of coal was not shipped until September 1, 1904. In that\n         year J. S. Tipton, formerly the majority stockholder, resigned\n         his post as general manager of Borderland Coal and sold most\n         of his stock to Edward L. Stone. At that time Stone was\n         president of the Young Men's Investment Club which owned a\n         large number of shares in the Borderland Coal Company, and\n         thus, Stone controlled the club's activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company initially owned approximately\n         1,000 acres of coal land. The company mined bituminous or soft\n         coal, and sold slack coal, used by railroads and industrial\n         concerns, egg coal, used in private furnaces, and nut coal,\n         the highest quality of bituminous coal, used in the kitchens\n         of private homes.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company grew through the early 1900's.\n         In 1905, a second plant was opened called simply \"Operation\n         #2.\" The company declared its first stock dividend in November\n         1907, and began the construction of an electric plant,\n         cableway, conveyor, and tipple at a cost of $27,950.00. In\n         1908 a new coal washer was installed. By late 1914 the\n         Borderland Company held 3,000 acres of coal lands containing\n         an estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal. The profits of the\n         Borderland Coal Company increased from $1,250.00 in 1904 to\n         $11,243.77 in 1905, to $49,977.21 in 1908, and to $110,532.68\n         in 1910.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe amount of coal mined increased from 246 railroad\n         carloads in 1904 to 3,781 railroad carloads in 1910, and\n         expansion continued until the outbreak of World War I. The\n         coal paid a regular annual dividend averaging 15-30%. Prior to\n         1911, the Leckie Coal Company of Cleveland, Ohio, was the\n         exclusive agency for the sale of Borderland Coal. In that\n         year, however, the Borderland Coal Sales Company was formed,\n         with officers of the Borderland Coal Company doubling as\n         officials of the new company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe town of Borderland, West Virginia, was a company town,\n         with company-owned homes, stores, school, and a church. The\n         rents in the company homes appear to have been within the\n         miners' incomes. The prices in the company stores, however,\n         were exorbitant. In fact, profits for the company store were\n         the second biggest money maker for the company in 1911,\n         totaling $11,811.78. The largest profit maker was coal, which\n         netted $91,741.07, while the sale of powder was ranked third,\n         totaling $3,165.86.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWorld War I created a great demand and a high prices for\n         coal, and the Borderland Coal Company prospered despite\n         difficulty finding railroad cars to transport its produce. In\n         1917, the company paid a record 60% dividend. On January 1,\n         1918, the company re-chartered itself in Virginia, and\n         patented the trademark and the name of the Borderland Coal\n         Company. The new capital stock was valued at nearly\n         $800,000.00. In November 1918 construction began on a new\n         tipple at a cost of $116,000.00. After the First World War,\n         the Borderland Coal Company experienced a decrease in both the\n         demand and the price of coal. The problem of labor and\n         unionization, however, ultimately caused the company's\n         demise.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eBorderland Coal Company officials had been concerned over\n         the growth of coal mine unionization long before any major\n         trouble began. As early as 1915, L. E. Armentrout, the\n         corporation's Vice President and General Manager began using\n         \"secret service men\" to infiltrate the ranks of the miners and\n         report on any union activity. It is not known whether these\n         agents were U.S. government agents or private investigators,\n         but the latter is presumed. One of them reported on March 10,\n         1915:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eI spent the entire day Monday with Emmett and Ed McKee,\n            Gus Cantrell, and Henry McKnight, all white Americans. We\n            played cards in an empty house on the Kentucky side. We had\n            a nice fire and everything was very comfortable. We would\n            play cards until we got tired, then we would stop\n            everything and talk unionism. Gus Cantrell said that he had\n            been talking to the boys for the last year, trying to get\n            them to organize a local of the U.M.W. of A. He said that\n            there was plenty of good, solid union men and that there\n            were also a lot of rotten scabs here. That he got into a\n            conversation with George McCormick, a white man, and\n            McCormick told him that he didn't believe in the union and\n            that he didn't want anything to do with the U.M.W. of A. .\n            . . I told Cantrell that I would be willing to help\n            organize the local. He said, \"Well, the work is picking up\n            now and we will wait until the boys get a good pay day,\n            then we will put this thing through.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eBorderland Coal Company successfully resisted unionization\n         in the years before World War I. Wartime regulations prevented\n         strikes and hindered unionization, but after the war many\n         miners felt that it was time to air their grievances. Miners\n         disagreed over specific demands, but most felt that grave\n         inequalities existed in the rates for day workers established\n         by the Bituminous Coal Commission. The miners requested that a\n         conference be held but this request was turned down by the\n         Commission. Dissatisfaction became more pronounced, and during\n         the middle of July 1920 the miners in some of the subdistricts\n         walked out in an unauthorized strike. Shutdowns spread to\n         Indiana and Illinois. President Woodrow Wilson intervened and\n         told the miners that if they returned to work a grievance\n         committee would be formed. The miners returned to work August\n         10, 1920, and the committee was set up. Management and labor\n         agreed on a wage increase and all was quiet for a while.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWest Virginia was in a unique position in that most of the\n         mines in that state were non-union. The Interstate Commerce\n         Commission fixed freight rates with a \"differential\" low\n         enough that West Virginia coal would not be eliminated by\n         production from other fields closer to their market. When the\n         market for coal was good, the differential also allowed the\n         union coal fields of Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois to pay\n         the union scale of wages and still sell their coal in\n         competition with the product of non-union fields, such as\n         those in West Virginia. When the demand for coal was low and\n         prices receded, however, the differential no longer aided the\n         union fields and they began to experience an adverse effect.\n         These conditions appeared after the First World War, and as a\n         result operators of unionized mines demanded the unionization\n         of the Wast Virginia coal fields. Thus the U.M.W. put pressure\n         on all non-union fields, including those of the Borderland\n         Coal Company. Borderland Coal Company had been fairly quiet\n         about unionization up to this time. On May 5, 1920, however,\n         L. E. Armentrout had issued the following notice:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eTO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE BORDERLAND\n            COAL COMPANY \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eConsiderable efforts are being made to organize this\n            field and certain advantages are being held out to some men\n            showing the advisability of belonging to the Union. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eThis is a free country and this company is not going\n            to dictate to its employees whether they shall or shall not\n            join the Union, but for your information and for the\n            information of your friends, we wish to state positively\n            that no Union man will be employed by this company, and if\n            you find that it is to your interest to join the Union, we\n            would suggest that you arrange to move out and call at the\n            office and we will be glad to settle with you. This will\n            save you as well as the company further trouble, but we\n            sincerely hope that the pleasant relations between the\n            Company and the men will continue, and that each and every\n            one of you will continue in our employ. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eYours very truly, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eL. E. Armentrout, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eManager \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eBy late May, 1920 the situation had become acute.\n         Armentrout wrote to James P. Woods, president of the\n         Borderland Coal Company:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eThe organizers have just about put us out of business at\n            both plants . . . We have a good many men who have not\n            joined the Union, but these agitators are intimidating them\n            and have them so scared they won't attempt to try to work.\n            I will have a conference with the West Virginia attorneys\n            today to see if I cannot get a temporary injunction, or\n            probably prosecution for these intimidators. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eWe have three Deputy Sheriffs in Kentucky and expect\n            two more in today. We have both plants pretty well policed\n            at night, but still some of the intimidators slip through\n            the mines and get to some of the men. . . \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eNow that the primary is over, we believe that\n            Unionism will die out. . . . In fact, no Union cards have\n            been issued and for the past two or three days they have\n            not been able to locate the man who has been giving them\n            orders on the stores. Some of them (the fired Union Men)\n            have already remarked that they could not support their\n            families on $7.00 to $8.00 a week, and they hated to go to\n            bed at night when their children were crying for something\n            to eat.\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eUnionism, however, did not die out. Union \"agitators\" saw\n         to that no coal could be mined at the Borderland Company's\n         coal fields. In a letter to Stone dated July 6, 1920,\n         Armentrout stated that he was able to get \"very little action\n         from the Governor of West Virginia. . .I just finished talking\n         to Governor Morrow's office in Frankfort, Kentucky, and the\n         home guards will likely entrain today. They will likely have\n         machine guns so if that they get in according to promise, we\n         think that conditions will improve very rapidly.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company kept its promise and\n         dispossessed hundreds of its employees. Fired from their jobs\n         and ousted from their homes, they were forced to live in\n         tents. In a union pamphlet entitled \"Borderland and Bullets\"\n         these men told of the horrible indignities forced on company\n         employees who joined the union. The purpose of the pamphlet\n         was to oppose the re-election of Colonel James P. Woods,\n         president of the Borderland Coal Company, to the U. S. House\n         of Representatives. Woods ran for re-election in the sixth\n         Virginia district claiming that he had been always fair to the\n         working man, and he won.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe situation at Borderland soon deteriorated into\n         violence. A pamphlet dated \"winter, 1920\" and entitled \n         \u003ctitle type=\"simple\" render=\"doublequote\" href=\"\"\u003eHell with the Lid Off in Mingo\n         County, West Virginia,\u003c/title\u003egives an account of drunken\n         company guards wounding a number of workers by firing into\n         their tents. On May 12, 1920, Edward Stone, chairman of the\n         board of the Borderland Coal Company, had examined an\n         advertisement for the Thompson sub-machine gun but had decided\n         that \"the gun is not sufficient for our needs at the mine.\" On\n         May 16 Governor John J. Cornwell of West Virginia sent a\n         telegram to the War Department in Washington requesting that\n         Federal troops be sent to the Tug River District, where\n         Borderland Coal Company was located. There had been fighting\n         in the Tug River District for nearly four days. Secretary of\n         War John Weeks, basing his decision on reports from one of his\n         staff officers who had visited the area, decided that federal\n         troops were not needed. Four days later Governor Cornwell\n         declared martial law in West Virginia. Militiamen from both\n         Kentucky and West Virginia were involved in the fighting.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn the summer of 1921 the U. M. W. began its famous \"summer\n         march\" which precipitated guerilla warfare between the\n         pro-union and anti-union forces. On June 29, Governor Cornwell\n         ordered the citizens of West Virginia to take up arms and\n         defend themselves against the pro-unionists. The papers of the\n         Borderland Coal Company include lists of casualties written on\n         scrap paper, such as \"Stone Mountain, 5 Baldwin men and 4\n         citizens killed (one the mayor), 2 Feltz Bros. killed, 2\n         military companies there, 2 on the way.\" In April 1922 the\n         coal miners' grievances came to a head and they struck. They\n         demanded a continuation of the system of bargaining and\n         contract, including the \"checkoff,\" which is a list devised to\n         check on payment of union dues. In addition to demanding\n         stable wage rates, the miners demanded a six-hour day and a\n         five-day week. These increased hours would mean steady\n         employment, one of the miners' main goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe strike apparently took some pressure off the Borderland\n         Coal Company because after 1922 there is little or nothing in\n         the collection regarding unionization. Company officials had\n         managed to avoid unionization of their mines but had caused\n         the company much damage in the process. Bitter feelings\n         prevailed after the strike. A letter from L. E. Armentrout to\n         the Borderland Coal Company dated 1923 states:\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cblockquote\u003e\n        \u003cp\u003eGentlemen, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eMy attention has just been called to the enclosed\n            blotter bearing the union label. It has been the policy of\n            this company for several years, in fact, ever since we have\n            been in business, not to recognize any Union whatever. We\n            spent, or lost, something like $300,000.00 fighting the\n            United Mine Workers here in 1920 and 1921, and also have\n            some injunctions against them. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eFor your information, please do not place any more\n            printing with any Union shop, and if you have any more of\n            these blotters, tear them up or dispose of them otherwise\n            as it is inconsistent with our policy, and we positively\n            will not stand for it.\u003c/p\u003e\n      \u003c/blockquote\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhile much of the collection regards labor struggles, there\n         is little material regarding immigrant labor although 40% of\n         the workers were immigrants. West Virginia was a sparsely\n         populated state at this time, and immigrants were needed to\n         supplement the labor in their mines. The first constitution of\n         the state provided for the appointment of an immigration\n         officer whose duties were to advertise the attractions of West\n         Virginia throughout Europe and make arrangements with\n         industries to supply transportation for foreign workmen. Of\n         the 80,877 workers employed in the West Virginia coal mines in\n         1915, 49,753 were American-born (37,918 white and 11,835\n         black) and 31,124 were foreign-born. Italians made up the\n         largest percentage of the immigrant labor force, about one\n         third of all foreigners employed in the mines while Hungarians\n         comprised the second-most prevalent nationality, approximately\n         one-sixth of the foreign born total.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Borderland Coal Company never fully recovered from the\n         trouble that paralyzed its mines in 1920. The 1920's were a\n         very depressed period for the mining industry in general and\n         the depression of 1929 brought prices to an all time low. Coal\n         production fell precipitously from 1927-1933 although there\n         seemed to be a slight upturn that year. In 1927, L. E.\n         Armentrout resigned from the company and a year later the\n         Borderland Coal Sales Company was dissolved due to lack of\n         business. The Norfolk and Chesapeake Coal Company became\n         exclusive agents for the sale of Borderland coal. At a meeting\n         of the Borderland Coal Company's board of directors in 1929,\n         it was stated that since the market for coal was so poor, it\n         hardly paid to keep the mines going. The Borderland Coal\n         Company mines were only worked four days during the entire\n         month of May 1932. In a letter from Edward L. Stone to a\n         Borderland Coal Company creditor, Stone wrote that as the\n         Borderland Coal Company did not have the money to pay its\n         debts, all creditors would have to wait for their money, and\n         that he hoped that he could avoid declaring the Borderland\n         Coal Company bankrupt. In 1934 Stone received a letter from a\n         stockholder consoling him for having to \"lose Borderland\n         Coal.\" Apparently the company was then out of business.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe demise of the Borderland Coal Company was the result of\n         broad national trends; the product of their mines was of high\n         quality, and in good supply. The problem of labor and\n         unionization paralyzed the Borderland Coal Company. Lack of\n         production in the mines meant that the Borderland Coal Company\n         could not pay dividends which affected their stockholders. The\n         bad mining conditions, a lack of demand for coal and low\n         market prices made it impossible for the Borderland Coal\n         Company to recover. The return of the coal-rich region of\n         Alsace-Lorraine to France meant that our allies no longer\n         needed American coal. Domestic demand increased, but it did\n         not compensate for decreased industrial use. The switch to\n         alternative forms of energy such as oil, also damaged the coal\n         industry. Although prosperity returned to the rest of the\n         country, the coal industry never totally recovered, and the\n         Borderland Coal Company was one of the victims.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOfficers of the Borderland Coal Company: Edward Lee Stone\n         --President ca. 1907-1919, Chairman of the Board 1919-ca.\n         1934; James P. Woods (attorney at law --U. S. Representative,\n         6th Virginia District) --Vice President ca. 1905-1922,\n         President 1922-1932; L. E. Armentrout --Manager ca. 1905-1915,\n         Vice President and Manager ca. 1915-1927; Ernest B. Fishburn\n         --Secretary-Treasurer ca. 1905-1930\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOfficers of the Borderland Coal Sales Company: L. E.\n         Armentrout --President; Edward Lee Stone --Vice President;\n         James P. Woods --second Vice President; R. N. Osborne,\n         Jr.--Secretary (discharged in 1924); W. W.\n         Austin--Secretary.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003e\u003cemph render=\"bold\"\u003eA History of the Stone Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company\u003c/emph\u003e\u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eThe Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia, was established in 1883 as the Bell Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company. John P. Bell of Lynchburg served as\n         president, and Samuel J. Fields of Abington, Virginia, served\n         as manager. Edward L. Stone, the eventual chairman of the\n         board, was then employed as a journeyman printer and pressman.\n         In 1885, Stone succeeded Fields as the company's manager, and\n         his brother, Albert A. Stone, joined the business.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAt this time the company occupied a small site on Commerce\n         Street in Roanoke, an area about twenty by twenty-five feet.\n         In 1889 the plant was seriously damaged by fire, and within a\n         few months, the company moved to larger quarters on the second\n         and third floors of the Gale Building on Jefferson Street.\n         Shortly thereafter, the controlling interest was purchased by\n         Edward L. Stone, with the remainder of the stock being\n         purchased by J. B. Fishburn and Albert A. Stone.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn 1892, the name of the company was changed to the Stone\n         Printing and Manufacturing Company, and the company occupied a\n         new, three-story building at 116 North Jefferson Street. In\n         1896, a duplicate building was added on the north side; in a\n         few years another addition was placed at the rear. The company\n         built another addition in 1902 but five years later the old\n         structure was torn down and a new two-stories building, 210 x\n         110 feet, was completed. The new structure gave the Stone\n         Printing Company 50,000 square feet of space, which is about\n         100 times the floor space originally occupied on Commerce\n         Street. The company today occupies the same site on Jefferson\n         Street.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eIn 1883 the capital stock of the company was $5,000.00, and\n         in 1900, it was increased to $50,000.00. In 1910 the capital\n         stock had grown to $350,000.00. All of the stock increases\n         were taken, with one exception, by the original stockholders.\n         Sales grew from $84,371.00 in 1900 to $179,433.78 in 1905, and\n         from $253,781.15 in 1909 to a high of $608,174.36 in 1920.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eStone had considered selling his printing company to a\n         British syndicate in 1912. He felt, however, that business was\n         good and getting better and eventually decided to retain\n         control. By 1920 the Stone Printing Company had customers in\n         half the states in the union and in some foreign countries.\n         Between 1920 and 1929, however, sales showed a steady decline.\n         In 1929 they fell to $399,701.43 and declined throughout the\n         depression.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe Stone Printing Company's most important business came\n         from railroads as the company printed tariff and rate\n         schedules as well as tickets. Since the railroad rates changed\n         rapidly during the early 1900's, railroad printing was very\n         lucrative. The principal railroad customer and in fact, the\n         largest customer, of the Stone Printing Company was the\n         Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1910 the Norfolk and Western\n         Railroad accounted for $85,652.60 in sales. Combined with the\n         sales to other railroads in 1910, the total of railroad sales\n         was approximately $193,000.00 of a total of $339,678.92 --well\n         over half of the total sales of the Stone Printing\n         Company.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eCommercial printing comprised the second largest source of\n         the Stone Printing Company's business, accounting for\n         $135,110.32 of a total $608,174.36 in 1920. The fourth largest\n         amount of business, after the Norfolk and Western Railway,\n         other railroads, and commercial printing, was school and\n         college printing. The Stone Printing Company printed the\n         yearbooks for the University of Virginia, the Georgia\n         Institute of Technology, the University of Mississippi,\n         Randolph-Macon College, Hollins College, Virginia Polytechnic\n         Institute, and others.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe profit margin in printing often was small, and thus\n         costs had to be carefully controlled. Edward L. Stone was a\n         commissioner of the American Printers Cost Commission which\n         kept a close watch on printing costs and tried to keep them\n         down. Another serious problem that bothered Stone Printing\n         Company was unionization. As most Roanoke printing shops,\n         Stone Printing Company was an open shop where either union or\n         non-union people could be employed. The company's officers did\n         not penalize or prevent workers from joining the union. The\n         International Typographical Union, however, put pressure on\n         Edward Stone to turn his establishment into a closed shop,\n         that is, a shop that would hire only union members, pay union\n         wages, and abide by union rules. Paying union wages did not\n         trouble Stone because he already paid more than the union\n         scale in most cases. For example, in 1905 when the union scale\n         was $13.50 per week, Stone pointed out that while two of his\n         employees received less and one received the union wage, over\n         forty workers received between $15.00 and $25.00 per week.\n         Stone felt it folly to pay all workers the same because, he\n         said, \"some are so much better than others.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eEdward Stone's paternalistic attitude toward his employees\n         is reflected in a collection of letters exchanged with his\n         workers. Forced to fire an employee who lied about being able\n         to work on a printing press, Stone lent him the money to go to\n         printing school, and re-hired him when he had learned the\n         trade. Another worker left the company without notice, heading\n         home to Lexington, Virginia. When the employee needed money to\n         return to Roanoke, Stone lent it to him with the understanding\n         that the employee would never again leave without asking\n         Stone's permission. Another employee left Stone without notice\n         to work for another printing firm, but when the employee\n         wanted his old job back, Stone gave it to him. Stone\n         frequently lent money to his employees, and did not press them\n         for repayment.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eMany of the union's rules, however bothered Stone. Among\n         the ones he objected to were (1) in all cases when it became\n         necessary to reduce the working force of an office, the last\n         person hired should be the first dropped; (2) in machine\n         composition, all work must be time work and no piece work\n         should be allowed; (3) no member of the International\n         Typographical Union should engage in a speed contest either by\n         hand composition or on machines, and violation of this rule\n         was to be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00, or by\n         suspension; (4) an eight hour day (Stone Printing had a 9 to\n         9-1/2 hour day); and (5) no one holding active membership in a\n         local union should sign any individual or private contract\n         with any employer, agreeing to work for any stated time,\n         length, or conditions as the union alone was to have the power\n         to contract for conditions, wages, and hours. This fifth\n         stipulation bothered Stone the most for he firmly believed\n         that an employee should perform whatever duty Stone demanded\n         of him.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eOn November 20, 1907, there was a union strike in Roanoke.\n         The union men employed by the Stone Printing Company walked\n         out, and the union formed a picket line in front of the Stone\n         Printing Company. Stone wrote to Joel Cuthin, Mayor of\n         Roanoke: \"We have never been opposed to the union, but we have\n         objected to having them run our business, unless they acquired\n         it by ownership.\" The union put pressure on the Stone Printing\n         Company. A memo to Edward Stone from Albert Stone dated 1915\n         told of some Stone Printing Company material being returned by\n         certain Roanoke merchants because they did not bear the union\n         label. The amount of material returned, however, was very\n         small. The union pressure placed on Stone was generally\n         peaceful and there was no violence or destruction. After the\n         unsuccessful strike, Stone took back all of his union men.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eAfter 1920 the company's sales and profits declined. In\n         1927, Albert Stone, who had assumed the presidency of the\n         company, commissioned Ernst and Ernst, financial analysts, to\n         examine the operation of Stone Printing and make\n         recommendations for improving business. The analysts found\n         Stone Printing to be an innovative company which sought and\n         found new markets such as school and college printing and the\n         printing of calendars, and which had sound leadership. Ernst\n         and Ernst felt that it was a change in economic conditions,\n         not the company itself, that caused the company's problems.\n         Competition had changed and grown in intensity by 1920, making\n         the ability to sell most important. The analysts recommended\n         the creation of a sales department coupled with more\n         aggressive selling techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eLater, Albert Stone, Jr., Edward Stone's nephew, claimed\n         that it was the reluctance of the Stone Printing Company to\n         cut prices during the depression of 1919-1922 that caused the\n         company's problems. He claimed that by the time the company\n         did cut its prices, Stone Printing had lost many of its most\n         valued customers, and suggested a closer watch of costs\n         coupled with an expansion of the calendar line. Although these\n         suggestions were followed, business did not improve.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhen the Great Depression hit in 1929, business worsened.\n         Loyal customers and a solid financial base kept the Stone\n         Printing Company from bankruptcy. Edward Stone's health was\n         failing by 1929, and most of the company's affairs were passed\n         on to his brother Albert. In a letter from Edward Stone to the\n         board of directors in 1930, he wrote: \n         \u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cp\u003ethe years operations to date, with vastly improved\n            selling efforts, has only brought us the same volume of\n            business that we had last year but the increased\n            organization expense, incident to this extra selling\n            effort, and the extraordinary competition in the matter of\n            price, has prevented us from obtaining prices that we\n            should really obtain for our products.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003eEdward Stone recommended a reduction in salaries\n         across the board from the president on down, and layoffs of\n         certain personnel.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eWhen Franklin D. Roosevelt first initiated his New Deal\n         program in 1933, Edward Stone was apprehensive. In a letter\n         dated July 26, 1933, he wrote: \n         \u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe would like the best in the world to go along with the\n            National Industrial Recovery Act, and be able to wire\n            President Roosevelt an affirmative reply in connection with\n            the agreement addressed \"To Every Employer.\" \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eBut to do so, with my modest knowledge of economics,\n            would mean arbitrary action on our part, with a \"blind\n            faith\" that we do not possess. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eIf we still further reduce the working hours to 35\n            per week (as the New Deal suggested) the increased cost of\n            production reaches the geometric progression stage, with\n            the result that our losses on current contracts, which we\n            see no way of passing along to our customers until we would\n            actually see no way of meeting our payroll or meeting our\n            bills, would mean disaster. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eListening in over the radio last night I understand\n            that 5,000 or more telegrams had been received by the\n            President indicating unconditional acceptance of the\n            Agreement. It is quite possible that we should do likewise,\n            regardless, just as we offered ourselves, body and\n            resources, in wartime. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eI am giving expression to these thoughts even though\n            I feel the \"patriotic\" thing for us to do may be to go\n            ahead, \"blindly,\" and in spite of our objections or reasons\n            for not doing so, and sign the agreement. \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eVery Sincerely, \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eEdward L. Stone \n            \u003clb\u003e\u003c/lb\u003eChairman of the Board\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003eClearly, Stone expected no miracles, but he went\n         along with the N.I.R.A. and generally supported Roosevelt.\n         There are references to increasing business by 1937.\n         Correspondence ends the following year with Edward Stone's\n         death. The Stone Printing Company, however, is in business to\n         this very day.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"bioghist_heading_ssm":["Biographical/Historical Information"],"bioghist_tesim":["of Edward L. StoneEdward Lee Stone was born on September 15, 1864, in\n         Liberty (now Bedford) Virginia, the son of John Harmon Stone\n         and Mary Witt Stone. He was reared in very modest\n         circumstances, and received no more than an elementary school\n         education, yet he became one of the wealthiest and most\n         prominent citizens in the state of Virginia.","Edward Stone's career in the printing business is typical\n         of the fabled American dream. At ten years of age, having\n         recently lost his father, Stone was in the boys' playground of\n         his school. J. R. Guy, the editor of the Bedford Sentinel\n         newspaper, came to the playground looking for William Fellers,\n         Stone's cousin. When Stone asked Mr. Guy what he wanted with\n         William, Guy replied \"I want him to carry the papers. Stone\n         said, \"I'll carry 'em' for you.\" After being a delivery boy\n         for the Sentinel, Stone learned to set type and worked\n         evenings after school for five cents an evening; twenty-five\n         cents on Saturday. Less than a year later, economics\n         necessitated that he quit school to pursue his job full time.\n         Stone learned his lessons well, and showed enthusiasm in every\n         phase of his work. Young Stone worked alongside a window, and\n         enjoyed nothing better than to jump out into the street and\n         scrap with some passing youngster, returning to his duties\n         after the fun was over.","Stone was given more and more duties which he performed to\n         this employer's total satisfaction. At the age of sixteen, for\n         some now-inexplicable reason, Stone left the newspaper\n         business to work for a mercantile establishment, He soon grew\n         bored, however, and returned to printer's ink. This time he\n         worked for the Democrat, a weekly newspaper in Buchanan,\n         Virginia, then a thriving town at the intersection of the\n         James River and the Kanawha Canal.","Once, at the age of sixteen, Stone was entrusted with\n         getting out an entire edition of the paper by himself. The\n         editor was in court and many workmen were out sick. Stone and\n         an assistant set type at breakneck speed beginning at 7:15\n         A.M. and had the entire seven-column paper completed by noon\n         --an amazing feat. Stone was out playing ball by 2 P.M. and\n         earned a $5.00 bonus from his boss, editor William J. Boyd. In\n         1882, Boyd informed Stone that he was going to open a printing\n         office in Roanoke, Virginia, then a small town. Boyd wanted\n         Stone to be manager, and on July 20th, 1882, both men arrived\n         in Roanoke. A place could not be found for the new enterprise\n         however, and both returned to Buchanan. Stone became\n         disillusioned with the small scope of opportunities Buchanan\n         provided, and, with an ambition to \"become somebody\" in the\n         printing business, set out for Lynchburg. Landing in Lynchburg\n         in January 1883 he applied for work on the News and, after a\n         few days, secured a position as compositor. Here he remained\n         until March, achieving considerable reputation as a fast\n         compositor, yet not satisfied. Stone really longed for a\n         position in the printing business. John P. Bell offered Stone\n         a minor position in a branch office he had planned to open in\n         Roanoke. The position was, in most respects, inferior to the\n         one he had already held, but Stone gladly took it. He worked\n         hard, and showed superior business ability which impressed Mr.\n         Bell so much that when the manager of the business died in\n         1885 his position was offered to Stone. The position was not\n         offered without some misgivings because of Stone's youth (he\n         was only twenty-one) and his lack of business experience.\n         Stone, however, did such a good job as manager that Bell\n         realized that he had made the right choice. Stone eventually\n         gained control of the business and became president of the\n         company.","His position was secure enough that in 1890, he married\n         Miss Minnie Fishburn, daughter of J. A. Fishburn, a prominent\n         business man of Roanoke. The couple had one child, Mary\n         Katherine Stone.","Edward Stone's printing business grew in size and wealth.\n         By 1920 it was acknowledged by many to be the best-equipped\n         printing corporation in the south, and one of the largest as\n         well. He had many other business interests. He was president\n         of the Borderland Coal Corporation, president of the Virginia\n         Bridge and Iron Company, vice president and later president of\n         the Walker Foundry and Machine Company, chairman of the First\n         National Exchange Bank, and president of his primary business\n         and \"first love,\" the Stone Printing and Manufacturing\n         Company.","In March 1896 Stone was presented with a petition signed by\n         fourteen Roanoke business men requesting that he run for\n         mayor. Stone was very tempted, but a law stating that no one\n         in Roanoke public office would be permitted to do business\n         with the city stopped him. Stone felt that not being able to\n         do business with the city would be unfair to his stockholders.\n         Stone, a civic-minded individual, was chairman of the Roanoke\n         Community Fund in 1924, and of the City Planning and Zoning\n         Commission. He was also chairman of the war bond committee\n         during the First World War, and belonged to many societies and\n         organizations, including the American Institute of Graphic\n         Arts, the Florida State Historical Society, the Shenandoah\n         Club of Roanoke, the Country Club of Roanoke, the Roanoke Gun\n         Club, the Roanoke German Club, the Virginia Historical Society\n         (life member), the Better Printing Committee of the United\n         Typothetae of America, the Roanoke Rotary Club, the\n         International Benjamin Franklin Society of New York, and the\n         board of trustees of the Committee to Assist the Blind.","Edward Stone was also an extremely charitable man. He gave\n         large sums of money to the Roanoke Hospital and the Roanoke\n         Relief Fund, helped endow Roanoke College, gave heavily to the\n         Boy Scouts and the War Relief Clearing House, and donated\n         money to the Coal Miner's Relief Fund--even though it was\n         those very coal miners who were striking in Stone's coal\n         mines. He believed, however, that the miners' children should\n         not have to suffer for their parents' stand. The Stones also\n         gave money to support French children who had been left\n         fatherless as a result of the war. Stone, a Presbyterian,\n         donated $100.00 to the Jewish Relief Fund in 1917 to aid the\n         starving Jews in Russia displaced by the war, and also sent\n         funds to the Tuskeegee Institute.","Edward Stone's principal hobby was book collecting, and his\n         library was appraised at $50,000.00 in 1939. Among his\n         treasured pieces was a page from the original Gutenberg Bible.\n         Stone's library was considered to be the largest and\n         best-equipped privately-owned library in the state of\n         Virginia.","Stone's income fluctuated through the years. In 1917 and\n         1918, partly through stock sales, Stone declared an income of\n         $129,383.39 and $91,483.00 respectively, but 1926 was\n         considered an average year, and he declared an income of\n         $57,500.00.","Although Stone was a humanitarian and philanthropist, he\n         believed in keeping total control of his business and watched\n         his employees closely. He did not strongly oppose unionization\n         in his printing shop, but fully opposed unionization in his\n         coal mines, even using scabs to break strikes.","Stone suffered financial reversals during the Great\n         Depression but he reorganized his holdings to prevent a great\n         loss, and he weathered the Depression better than most\n         businessmen. His health had begun to fail by 1929, and by 1934\n         he was virtually bedridden. Finally, after a protracted\n         illness, Edward L. Stone died on June 3, 1938, at the age of\n         seventy-four.","A History of the Borderland Coal\n         CompanyThe Borderland Coal Company derived its name from its\n         dual location in Mingo County, West Virginia, and Pike County,\n         Kentucky, an area bordered by the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy\n         River. The mines proper were located in Kentucky, and the coal\n         washers and other processing equipment were located in West\n         Virginia. The company operated from 1903 to 1934. While the\n         Borderland Coal Company was incorporated in 1903, the first\n         batch of coal was not shipped until September 1, 1904. In that\n         year J. S. Tipton, formerly the majority stockholder, resigned\n         his post as general manager of Borderland Coal and sold most\n         of his stock to Edward L. Stone. At that time Stone was\n         president of the Young Men's Investment Club which owned a\n         large number of shares in the Borderland Coal Company, and\n         thus, Stone controlled the club's activities.","The Borderland Coal Company initially owned approximately\n         1,000 acres of coal land. The company mined bituminous or soft\n         coal, and sold slack coal, used by railroads and industrial\n         concerns, egg coal, used in private furnaces, and nut coal,\n         the highest quality of bituminous coal, used in the kitchens\n         of private homes.","The Borderland Coal Company grew through the early 1900's.\n         In 1905, a second plant was opened called simply \"Operation\n         #2.\" The company declared its first stock dividend in November\n         1907, and began the construction of an electric plant,\n         cableway, conveyor, and tipple at a cost of $27,950.00. In\n         1908 a new coal washer was installed. By late 1914 the\n         Borderland Company held 3,000 acres of coal lands containing\n         an estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal. The profits of the\n         Borderland Coal Company increased from $1,250.00 in 1904 to\n         $11,243.77 in 1905, to $49,977.21 in 1908, and to $110,532.68\n         in 1910.","The amount of coal mined increased from 246 railroad\n         carloads in 1904 to 3,781 railroad carloads in 1910, and\n         expansion continued until the outbreak of World War I. The\n         coal paid a regular annual dividend averaging 15-30%. Prior to\n         1911, the Leckie Coal Company of Cleveland, Ohio, was the\n         exclusive agency for the sale of Borderland Coal. In that\n         year, however, the Borderland Coal Sales Company was formed,\n         with officers of the Borderland Coal Company doubling as\n         officials of the new company.","The town of Borderland, West Virginia, was a company town,\n         with company-owned homes, stores, school, and a church. The\n         rents in the company homes appear to have been within the\n         miners' incomes. The prices in the company stores, however,\n         were exorbitant. In fact, profits for the company store were\n         the second biggest money maker for the company in 1911,\n         totaling $11,811.78. The largest profit maker was coal, which\n         netted $91,741.07, while the sale of powder was ranked third,\n         totaling $3,165.86.","World War I created a great demand and a high prices for\n         coal, and the Borderland Coal Company prospered despite\n         difficulty finding railroad cars to transport its produce. In\n         1917, the company paid a record 60% dividend. On January 1,\n         1918, the company re-chartered itself in Virginia, and\n         patented the trademark and the name of the Borderland Coal\n         Company. The new capital stock was valued at nearly\n         $800,000.00. In November 1918 construction began on a new\n         tipple at a cost of $116,000.00. After the First World War,\n         the Borderland Coal Company experienced a decrease in both the\n         demand and the price of coal. The problem of labor and\n         unionization, however, ultimately caused the company's\n         demise.","Borderland Coal Company officials had been concerned over\n         the growth of coal mine unionization long before any major\n         trouble began. As early as 1915, L. E. Armentrout, the\n         corporation's Vice President and General Manager began using\n         \"secret service men\" to infiltrate the ranks of the miners and\n         report on any union activity. It is not known whether these\n         agents were U.S. government agents or private investigators,\n         but the latter is presumed. One of them reported on March 10,\n         1915:","I spent the entire day Monday with Emmett and Ed McKee,\n            Gus Cantrell, and Henry McKnight, all white Americans. We\n            played cards in an empty house on the Kentucky side. We had\n            a nice fire and everything was very comfortable. We would\n            play cards until we got tired, then we would stop\n            everything and talk unionism. Gus Cantrell said that he had\n            been talking to the boys for the last year, trying to get\n            them to organize a local of the U.M.W. of A. He said that\n            there was plenty of good, solid union men and that there\n            were also a lot of rotten scabs here. That he got into a\n            conversation with George McCormick, a white man, and\n            McCormick told him that he didn't believe in the union and\n            that he didn't want anything to do with the U.M.W. of A. .\n            . . I told Cantrell that I would be willing to help\n            organize the local. He said, \"Well, the work is picking up\n            now and we will wait until the boys get a good pay day,\n            then we will put this thing through.\"","Borderland Coal Company successfully resisted unionization\n         in the years before World War I. Wartime regulations prevented\n         strikes and hindered unionization, but after the war many\n         miners felt that it was time to air their grievances. Miners\n         disagreed over specific demands, but most felt that grave\n         inequalities existed in the rates for day workers established\n         by the Bituminous Coal Commission. The miners requested that a\n         conference be held but this request was turned down by the\n         Commission. Dissatisfaction became more pronounced, and during\n         the middle of July 1920 the miners in some of the subdistricts\n         walked out in an unauthorized strike. Shutdowns spread to\n         Indiana and Illinois. President Woodrow Wilson intervened and\n         told the miners that if they returned to work a grievance\n         committee would be formed. The miners returned to work August\n         10, 1920, and the committee was set up. Management and labor\n         agreed on a wage increase and all was quiet for a while.","West Virginia was in a unique position in that most of the\n         mines in that state were non-union. The Interstate Commerce\n         Commission fixed freight rates with a \"differential\" low\n         enough that West Virginia coal would not be eliminated by\n         production from other fields closer to their market. When the\n         market for coal was good, the differential also allowed the\n         union coal fields of Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois to pay\n         the union scale of wages and still sell their coal in\n         competition with the product of non-union fields, such as\n         those in West Virginia. When the demand for coal was low and\n         prices receded, however, the differential no longer aided the\n         union fields and they began to experience an adverse effect.\n         These conditions appeared after the First World War, and as a\n         result operators of unionized mines demanded the unionization\n         of the Wast Virginia coal fields. Thus the U.M.W. put pressure\n         on all non-union fields, including those of the Borderland\n         Coal Company. Borderland Coal Company had been fairly quiet\n         about unionization up to this time. On May 5, 1920, however,\n         L. E. Armentrout had issued the following notice:","TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE EMPLOYEES OF THE BORDERLAND\n            COAL COMPANY \n            Considerable efforts are being made to organize this\n            field and certain advantages are being held out to some men\n            showing the advisability of belonging to the Union. \n            This is a free country and this company is not going\n            to dictate to its employees whether they shall or shall not\n            join the Union, but for your information and for the\n            information of your friends, we wish to state positively\n            that no Union man will be employed by this company, and if\n            you find that it is to your interest to join the Union, we\n            would suggest that you arrange to move out and call at the\n            office and we will be glad to settle with you. This will\n            save you as well as the company further trouble, but we\n            sincerely hope that the pleasant relations between the\n            Company and the men will continue, and that each and every\n            one of you will continue in our employ. \n            Yours very truly, \n            L. E. Armentrout, \n            Manager","By late May, 1920 the situation had become acute.\n         Armentrout wrote to James P. Woods, president of the\n         Borderland Coal Company:","The organizers have just about put us out of business at\n            both plants . . . We have a good many men who have not\n            joined the Union, but these agitators are intimidating them\n            and have them so scared they won't attempt to try to work.\n            I will have a conference with the West Virginia attorneys\n            today to see if I cannot get a temporary injunction, or\n            probably prosecution for these intimidators. \n            We have three Deputy Sheriffs in Kentucky and expect\n            two more in today. We have both plants pretty well policed\n            at night, but still some of the intimidators slip through\n            the mines and get to some of the men. . . \n            Now that the primary is over, we believe that\n            Unionism will die out. . . . In fact, no Union cards have\n            been issued and for the past two or three days they have\n            not been able to locate the man who has been giving them\n            orders on the stores. Some of them (the fired Union Men)\n            have already remarked that they could not support their\n            families on $7.00 to $8.00 a week, and they hated to go to\n            bed at night when their children were crying for something\n            to eat.","Unionism, however, did not die out. Union \"agitators\" saw\n         to that no coal could be mined at the Borderland Company's\n         coal fields. In a letter to Stone dated July 6, 1920,\n         Armentrout stated that he was able to get \"very little action\n         from the Governor of West Virginia. . .I just finished talking\n         to Governor Morrow's office in Frankfort, Kentucky, and the\n         home guards will likely entrain today. They will likely have\n         machine guns so if that they get in according to promise, we\n         think that conditions will improve very rapidly.\"","The Borderland Coal Company kept its promise and\n         dispossessed hundreds of its employees. Fired from their jobs\n         and ousted from their homes, they were forced to live in\n         tents. In a union pamphlet entitled \"Borderland and Bullets\"\n         these men told of the horrible indignities forced on company\n         employees who joined the union. The purpose of the pamphlet\n         was to oppose the re-election of Colonel James P. Woods,\n         president of the Borderland Coal Company, to the U. S. House\n         of Representatives. Woods ran for re-election in the sixth\n         Virginia district claiming that he had been always fair to the\n         working man, and he won.","The situation at Borderland soon deteriorated into\n         violence. A pamphlet dated \"winter, 1920\" and entitled \n         Hell with the Lid Off in Mingo\n         County, West Virginia,gives an account of drunken\n         company guards wounding a number of workers by firing into\n         their tents. On May 12, 1920, Edward Stone, chairman of the\n         board of the Borderland Coal Company, had examined an\n         advertisement for the Thompson sub-machine gun but had decided\n         that \"the gun is not sufficient for our needs at the mine.\" On\n         May 16 Governor John J. Cornwell of West Virginia sent a\n         telegram to the War Department in Washington requesting that\n         Federal troops be sent to the Tug River District, where\n         Borderland Coal Company was located. There had been fighting\n         in the Tug River District for nearly four days. Secretary of\n         War John Weeks, basing his decision on reports from one of his\n         staff officers who had visited the area, decided that federal\n         troops were not needed. Four days later Governor Cornwell\n         declared martial law in West Virginia. Militiamen from both\n         Kentucky and West Virginia were involved in the fighting.","In the summer of 1921 the U. M. W. began its famous \"summer\n         march\" which precipitated guerilla warfare between the\n         pro-union and anti-union forces. On June 29, Governor Cornwell\n         ordered the citizens of West Virginia to take up arms and\n         defend themselves against the pro-unionists. The papers of the\n         Borderland Coal Company include lists of casualties written on\n         scrap paper, such as \"Stone Mountain, 5 Baldwin men and 4\n         citizens killed (one the mayor), 2 Feltz Bros. killed, 2\n         military companies there, 2 on the way.\" In April 1922 the\n         coal miners' grievances came to a head and they struck. They\n         demanded a continuation of the system of bargaining and\n         contract, including the \"checkoff,\" which is a list devised to\n         check on payment of union dues. In addition to demanding\n         stable wage rates, the miners demanded a six-hour day and a\n         five-day week. These increased hours would mean steady\n         employment, one of the miners' main goals.","The strike apparently took some pressure off the Borderland\n         Coal Company because after 1922 there is little or nothing in\n         the collection regarding unionization. Company officials had\n         managed to avoid unionization of their mines but had caused\n         the company much damage in the process. Bitter feelings\n         prevailed after the strike. A letter from L. E. Armentrout to\n         the Borderland Coal Company dated 1923 states:","Gentlemen, \n            My attention has just been called to the enclosed\n            blotter bearing the union label. It has been the policy of\n            this company for several years, in fact, ever since we have\n            been in business, not to recognize any Union whatever. We\n            spent, or lost, something like $300,000.00 fighting the\n            United Mine Workers here in 1920 and 1921, and also have\n            some injunctions against them. \n            For your information, please do not place any more\n            printing with any Union shop, and if you have any more of\n            these blotters, tear them up or dispose of them otherwise\n            as it is inconsistent with our policy, and we positively\n            will not stand for it.","While much of the collection regards labor struggles, there\n         is little material regarding immigrant labor although 40% of\n         the workers were immigrants. West Virginia was a sparsely\n         populated state at this time, and immigrants were needed to\n         supplement the labor in their mines. The first constitution of\n         the state provided for the appointment of an immigration\n         officer whose duties were to advertise the attractions of West\n         Virginia throughout Europe and make arrangements with\n         industries to supply transportation for foreign workmen. Of\n         the 80,877 workers employed in the West Virginia coal mines in\n         1915, 49,753 were American-born (37,918 white and 11,835\n         black) and 31,124 were foreign-born. Italians made up the\n         largest percentage of the immigrant labor force, about one\n         third of all foreigners employed in the mines while Hungarians\n         comprised the second-most prevalent nationality, approximately\n         one-sixth of the foreign born total.","The Borderland Coal Company never fully recovered from the\n         trouble that paralyzed its mines in 1920. The 1920's were a\n         very depressed period for the mining industry in general and\n         the depression of 1929 brought prices to an all time low. Coal\n         production fell precipitously from 1927-1933 although there\n         seemed to be a slight upturn that year. In 1927, L. E.\n         Armentrout resigned from the company and a year later the\n         Borderland Coal Sales Company was dissolved due to lack of\n         business. The Norfolk and Chesapeake Coal Company became\n         exclusive agents for the sale of Borderland coal. At a meeting\n         of the Borderland Coal Company's board of directors in 1929,\n         it was stated that since the market for coal was so poor, it\n         hardly paid to keep the mines going. The Borderland Coal\n         Company mines were only worked four days during the entire\n         month of May 1932. In a letter from Edward L. Stone to a\n         Borderland Coal Company creditor, Stone wrote that as the\n         Borderland Coal Company did not have the money to pay its\n         debts, all creditors would have to wait for their money, and\n         that he hoped that he could avoid declaring the Borderland\n         Coal Company bankrupt. In 1934 Stone received a letter from a\n         stockholder consoling him for having to \"lose Borderland\n         Coal.\" Apparently the company was then out of business.","The demise of the Borderland Coal Company was the result of\n         broad national trends; the product of their mines was of high\n         quality, and in good supply. The problem of labor and\n         unionization paralyzed the Borderland Coal Company. Lack of\n         production in the mines meant that the Borderland Coal Company\n         could not pay dividends which affected their stockholders. The\n         bad mining conditions, a lack of demand for coal and low\n         market prices made it impossible for the Borderland Coal\n         Company to recover. The return of the coal-rich region of\n         Alsace-Lorraine to France meant that our allies no longer\n         needed American coal. Domestic demand increased, but it did\n         not compensate for decreased industrial use. The switch to\n         alternative forms of energy such as oil, also damaged the coal\n         industry. Although prosperity returned to the rest of the\n         country, the coal industry never totally recovered, and the\n         Borderland Coal Company was one of the victims.","Officers of the Borderland Coal Company: Edward Lee Stone\n         --President ca. 1907-1919, Chairman of the Board 1919-ca.\n         1934; James P. Woods (attorney at law --U. S. Representative,\n         6th Virginia District) --Vice President ca. 1905-1922,\n         President 1922-1932; L. E. Armentrout --Manager ca. 1905-1915,\n         Vice President and Manager ca. 1915-1927; Ernest B. Fishburn\n         --Secretary-Treasurer ca. 1905-1930","Officers of the Borderland Coal Sales Company: L. E.\n         Armentrout --President; Edward Lee Stone --Vice President;\n         James P. Woods --second Vice President; R. N. Osborne,\n         Jr.--Secretary (discharged in 1924); W. W.\n         Austin--Secretary.","A History of the Stone Printing and\n         Manufacturing CompanyThe Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia, was established in 1883 as the Bell Printing and\n         Manufacturing Company. John P. Bell of Lynchburg served as\n         president, and Samuel J. Fields of Abington, Virginia, served\n         as manager. Edward L. Stone, the eventual chairman of the\n         board, was then employed as a journeyman printer and pressman.\n         In 1885, Stone succeeded Fields as the company's manager, and\n         his brother, Albert A. Stone, joined the business.","At this time the company occupied a small site on Commerce\n         Street in Roanoke, an area about twenty by twenty-five feet.\n         In 1889 the plant was seriously damaged by fire, and within a\n         few months, the company moved to larger quarters on the second\n         and third floors of the Gale Building on Jefferson Street.\n         Shortly thereafter, the controlling interest was purchased by\n         Edward L. Stone, with the remainder of the stock being\n         purchased by J. B. Fishburn and Albert A. Stone.","In 1892, the name of the company was changed to the Stone\n         Printing and Manufacturing Company, and the company occupied a\n         new, three-story building at 116 North Jefferson Street. In\n         1896, a duplicate building was added on the north side; in a\n         few years another addition was placed at the rear. The company\n         built another addition in 1902 but five years later the old\n         structure was torn down and a new two-stories building, 210 x\n         110 feet, was completed. The new structure gave the Stone\n         Printing Company 50,000 square feet of space, which is about\n         100 times the floor space originally occupied on Commerce\n         Street. The company today occupies the same site on Jefferson\n         Street.","In 1883 the capital stock of the company was $5,000.00, and\n         in 1900, it was increased to $50,000.00. In 1910 the capital\n         stock had grown to $350,000.00. All of the stock increases\n         were taken, with one exception, by the original stockholders.\n         Sales grew from $84,371.00 in 1900 to $179,433.78 in 1905, and\n         from $253,781.15 in 1909 to a high of $608,174.36 in 1920.","Stone had considered selling his printing company to a\n         British syndicate in 1912. He felt, however, that business was\n         good and getting better and eventually decided to retain\n         control. By 1920 the Stone Printing Company had customers in\n         half the states in the union and in some foreign countries.\n         Between 1920 and 1929, however, sales showed a steady decline.\n         In 1929 they fell to $399,701.43 and declined throughout the\n         depression.","The Stone Printing Company's most important business came\n         from railroads as the company printed tariff and rate\n         schedules as well as tickets. Since the railroad rates changed\n         rapidly during the early 1900's, railroad printing was very\n         lucrative. The principal railroad customer and in fact, the\n         largest customer, of the Stone Printing Company was the\n         Norfolk and Western Railroad. In 1910 the Norfolk and Western\n         Railroad accounted for $85,652.60 in sales. Combined with the\n         sales to other railroads in 1910, the total of railroad sales\n         was approximately $193,000.00 of a total of $339,678.92 --well\n         over half of the total sales of the Stone Printing\n         Company.","Commercial printing comprised the second largest source of\n         the Stone Printing Company's business, accounting for\n         $135,110.32 of a total $608,174.36 in 1920. The fourth largest\n         amount of business, after the Norfolk and Western Railway,\n         other railroads, and commercial printing, was school and\n         college printing. The Stone Printing Company printed the\n         yearbooks for the University of Virginia, the Georgia\n         Institute of Technology, the University of Mississippi,\n         Randolph-Macon College, Hollins College, Virginia Polytechnic\n         Institute, and others.","The profit margin in printing often was small, and thus\n         costs had to be carefully controlled. Edward L. Stone was a\n         commissioner of the American Printers Cost Commission which\n         kept a close watch on printing costs and tried to keep them\n         down. Another serious problem that bothered Stone Printing\n         Company was unionization. As most Roanoke printing shops,\n         Stone Printing Company was an open shop where either union or\n         non-union people could be employed. The company's officers did\n         not penalize or prevent workers from joining the union. The\n         International Typographical Union, however, put pressure on\n         Edward Stone to turn his establishment into a closed shop,\n         that is, a shop that would hire only union members, pay union\n         wages, and abide by union rules. Paying union wages did not\n         trouble Stone because he already paid more than the union\n         scale in most cases. For example, in 1905 when the union scale\n         was $13.50 per week, Stone pointed out that while two of his\n         employees received less and one received the union wage, over\n         forty workers received between $15.00 and $25.00 per week.\n         Stone felt it folly to pay all workers the same because, he\n         said, \"some are so much better than others.\"","Edward Stone's paternalistic attitude toward his employees\n         is reflected in a collection of letters exchanged with his\n         workers. Forced to fire an employee who lied about being able\n         to work on a printing press, Stone lent him the money to go to\n         printing school, and re-hired him when he had learned the\n         trade. Another worker left the company without notice, heading\n         home to Lexington, Virginia. When the employee needed money to\n         return to Roanoke, Stone lent it to him with the understanding\n         that the employee would never again leave without asking\n         Stone's permission. Another employee left Stone without notice\n         to work for another printing firm, but when the employee\n         wanted his old job back, Stone gave it to him. Stone\n         frequently lent money to his employees, and did not press them\n         for repayment.","Many of the union's rules, however bothered Stone. Among\n         the ones he objected to were (1) in all cases when it became\n         necessary to reduce the working force of an office, the last\n         person hired should be the first dropped; (2) in machine\n         composition, all work must be time work and no piece work\n         should be allowed; (3) no member of the International\n         Typographical Union should engage in a speed contest either by\n         hand composition or on machines, and violation of this rule\n         was to be punished by a fine of not less than $25.00, or by\n         suspension; (4) an eight hour day (Stone Printing had a 9 to\n         9-1/2 hour day); and (5) no one holding active membership in a\n         local union should sign any individual or private contract\n         with any employer, agreeing to work for any stated time,\n         length, or conditions as the union alone was to have the power\n         to contract for conditions, wages, and hours. This fifth\n         stipulation bothered Stone the most for he firmly believed\n         that an employee should perform whatever duty Stone demanded\n         of him.","On November 20, 1907, there was a union strike in Roanoke.\n         The union men employed by the Stone Printing Company walked\n         out, and the union formed a picket line in front of the Stone\n         Printing Company. Stone wrote to Joel Cuthin, Mayor of\n         Roanoke: \"We have never been opposed to the union, but we have\n         objected to having them run our business, unless they acquired\n         it by ownership.\" The union put pressure on the Stone Printing\n         Company. A memo to Edward Stone from Albert Stone dated 1915\n         told of some Stone Printing Company material being returned by\n         certain Roanoke merchants because they did not bear the union\n         label. The amount of material returned, however, was very\n         small. The union pressure placed on Stone was generally\n         peaceful and there was no violence or destruction. After the\n         unsuccessful strike, Stone took back all of his union men.","After 1920 the company's sales and profits declined. In\n         1927, Albert Stone, who had assumed the presidency of the\n         company, commissioned Ernst and Ernst, financial analysts, to\n         examine the operation of Stone Printing and make\n         recommendations for improving business. The analysts found\n         Stone Printing to be an innovative company which sought and\n         found new markets such as school and college printing and the\n         printing of calendars, and which had sound leadership. Ernst\n         and Ernst felt that it was a change in economic conditions,\n         not the company itself, that caused the company's problems.\n         Competition had changed and grown in intensity by 1920, making\n         the ability to sell most important. The analysts recommended\n         the creation of a sales department coupled with more\n         aggressive selling techniques.","Later, Albert Stone, Jr., Edward Stone's nephew, claimed\n         that it was the reluctance of the Stone Printing Company to\n         cut prices during the depression of 1919-1922 that caused the\n         company's problems. He claimed that by the time the company\n         did cut its prices, Stone Printing had lost many of its most\n         valued customers, and suggested a closer watch of costs\n         coupled with an expansion of the calendar line. Although these\n         suggestions were followed, business did not improve.","When the Great Depression hit in 1929, business worsened.\n         Loyal customers and a solid financial base kept the Stone\n         Printing Company from bankruptcy. Edward Stone's health was\n         failing by 1929, and most of the company's affairs were passed\n         on to his brother Albert. In a letter from Edward Stone to the\n         board of directors in 1930, he wrote: \n         the years operations to date, with vastly improved\n            selling efforts, has only brought us the same volume of\n            business that we had last year but the increased\n            organization expense, incident to this extra selling\n            effort, and the extraordinary competition in the matter of\n            price, has prevented us from obtaining prices that we\n            should really obtain for our products.Edward Stone recommended a reduction in salaries\n         across the board from the president on down, and layoffs of\n         certain personnel.","When Franklin D. Roosevelt first initiated his New Deal\n         program in 1933, Edward Stone was apprehensive. In a letter\n         dated July 26, 1933, he wrote: \n         We would like the best in the world to go along with the\n            National Industrial Recovery Act, and be able to wire\n            President Roosevelt an affirmative reply in connection with\n            the agreement addressed \"To Every Employer.\" \n            But to do so, with my modest knowledge of economics,\n            would mean arbitrary action on our part, with a \"blind\n            faith\" that we do not possess. \n            If we still further reduce the working hours to 35\n            per week (as the New Deal suggested) the increased cost of\n            production reaches the geometric progression stage, with\n            the result that our losses on current contracts, which we\n            see no way of passing along to our customers until we would\n            actually see no way of meeting our payroll or meeting our\n            bills, would mean disaster. \n            Listening in over the radio last night I understand\n            that 5,000 or more telegrams had been received by the\n            President indicating unconditional acceptance of the\n            Agreement. It is quite possible that we should do likewise,\n            regardless, just as we offered ourselves, body and\n            resources, in wartime. \n            I am giving expression to these thoughts even though\n            I feel the \"patriotic\" thing for us to do may be to go\n            ahead, \"blindly,\" and in spite of our objections or reasons\n            for not doing so, and sign the agreement. \n            Very Sincerely, \n            Edward L. Stone \n            Chairman of the BoardClearly, Stone expected no miracles, but he went\n         along with the N.I.R.A. and generally supported Roosevelt.\n         There are references to increasing business by 1937.\n         Correspondence ends the following year with Edward Stone's\n         death. The Stone Printing Company, however, is in business to\n         this very day."],"prefercite_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eEdward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers,\n            Accession #382, Special Collections, University of Virginia\n            Library, Charlottesville, Va.\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"prefercite_tesim":["Edward L. Stone/Borderland Coal Company Papers,\n            Accession #382, Special Collections, University of Virginia\n            Library, Charlottesville, Va."],"scopecontent_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eThese papers fill 455 special four-inch Hollinger storage\n         boxes (ca. 150 linear feet) and span the years 1895-1937.\n         There are three major series: Edward L. Stone's papers re his\n         personal life and diversified business, professional, and\n         civic concerns; papers concerned with his principal business,\n         the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia; and those papers concerned with the Borderland Coal\n         Company of West Virginia and Kentucky of which Stone was the\n         principal officer for many years. Because these series\n         basically are composed of Stone's personal papers, and because\n         there are interrelationships between material in one series\n         and that in another, the series have been maintained in the\n         boxes in the order in which they were found.\u003c/p\u003e\n      ","\u003cp\u003eThe papers are rich in material for many types of studies.\n         Because Stone's major concern was his printing business, there\n         is a great amount of material about that business, its labor\n         problems, economic problems, its professional associations,\n         relationships with its customers --especially the railroads\n         --and so on. Because Mr. Stone collected medieval manuscripts\n         and examples of fine printing that formed a great private\n         library, there is, in his personal papers, a good deal of\n         correspondence and material about this special interest. His\n         personal papers also contain considerable material about his\n         diversified business and civic interests. And the records of\n         the Borderland Coal Company--which Mr. Stone operated either\n         as president or as chairman of the board for twenty-seven\n         years--are rich in information concerning this vital industry,\n         its periods of economic success and decline, its relationships\n         with the railroads that moved its products, and its labor\n         problems.\u003c/p\u003e\n    "],"scopecontent_heading_ssm":["Scope and Content Information"],"scopecontent_tesim":["These papers fill 455 special four-inch Hollinger storage\n         boxes (ca. 150 linear feet) and span the years 1895-1937.\n         There are three major series: Edward L. Stone's papers re his\n         personal life and diversified business, professional, and\n         civic concerns; papers concerned with his principal business,\n         the Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company of Roanoke,\n         Virginia; and those papers concerned with the Borderland Coal\n         Company of West Virginia and Kentucky of which Stone was the\n         principal officer for many years. Because these series\n         basically are composed of Stone's personal papers, and because\n         there are interrelationships between material in one series\n         and that in another, the series have been maintained in the\n         boxes in the order in which they were found.","The papers are rich in material for many types of studies.\n         Because Stone's major concern was his printing business, there\n         is a great amount of material about that business, its labor\n         problems, economic problems, its professional associations,\n         relationships with its customers --especially the railroads\n         --and so on. Because Mr. Stone collected medieval manuscripts\n         and examples of fine printing that formed a great private\n         library, there is, in his personal papers, a good deal of\n         correspondence and material about this special interest. His\n         personal papers also contain considerable material about his\n         diversified business and civic interests. And the records of\n         the Borderland Coal Company--which Mr. Stone operated either\n         as president or as chairman of the board for twenty-seven\n         years--are rich in information concerning this vital industry,\n         its periods of economic success and decline, its relationships\n         with the railroads that moved its products, and its labor\n         problems."],"userestrict_html_tesm":["\u003cp\u003eSee the \n            \u003cextref type=\"simple\" href=\"https://www.library.virginia.edu/policies/use-of-materials\"\u003e\n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy.\u003c/extref\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n      "],"userestrict_heading_ssm":["Use Restrictions"],"userestrict_tesim":["See the \n            \n            University of Virginia Library’s use policy."],"language_ssim":["English"],"total_component_count_is":2216,"online_item_count_is":0,"component_level_isim":[0],"sort_isi":0,"timestamp":"2026-08-14T22:56:08.243Z"}]}},"label":"Breadcrumbs"}}},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/viu_viu00663_c03_c196"}}],"included":[{"type":"facet","id":"repository_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Repository","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept.","value":"University of Virginia, Special Collections Dept.","hits":3649},"links":{"remove":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/repository_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"collection_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Collection","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"A. E. Dick Howard papers, 1928/2017","value":"A. E. Dick Howard papers, 1928/2017","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=A.+E.+Dick+Howard+papers%2C+1928%2F2017\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Addison H. Smith papers, 1917/1970, bulk 1917/1922","value":"Addison H. Smith papers, 1917/1970, bulk 1917/1922","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Addison+H.+Smith+papers%2C+1917%2F1970%2C+bulk+1917%2F1922\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Additional Henry Hughes Presler\n Papers \n ca.\n 1909-1965","value":"Additional Henry Hughes Presler\n Papers \n ca.\n 1909-1965","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Additional+Henry+Hughes+Presler%0A+Papers+%0A+ca.%0A+1909-1965\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Agnes Repplier Collection \n 1891-1925","value":"Agnes Repplier Collection \n 1891-1925","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Agnes+Repplier+Collection+%0A+1891-1925\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Albert Frederick Wilson papers, 1840/1934","value":"Albert Frederick Wilson papers, 1840/1934","hits":3},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Albert+Frederick+Wilson+papers%2C+1840%2F1934\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Albert R. Gallatin papers, 1795/1828","value":"Albert R. Gallatin papers, 1795/1828","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Albert+R.+Gallatin+papers%2C+1795%2F1828\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alderman family papers, 1779/1961","value":"Alderman family papers, 1779/1961","hits":8},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Alderman+family+papers%2C+1779%2F1961\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alexander Wylie Moore miscellaneous papers, 1896/1950","value":"Alexander Wylie Moore miscellaneous papers, 1896/1950","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Alexander+Wylie+Moore+miscellaneous+papers%2C+1896%2F1950\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alexandria Hospital School of Nursing records, 1894/1987","value":"Alexandria Hospital School of Nursing records, 1894/1987","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Alexandria+Hospital+School+of+Nursing+records%2C+1894%2F1987\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alfred C. Garnett, Jr. Papers \n 1868-1945","value":"Alfred C. Garnett, Jr. Papers \n 1868-1945","hits":13},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Alfred+C.+Garnett%2C+Jr.+Papers+%0A+1868-1945\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alfred Dickinson Barksdale Papers \n 1893-1940","value":"Alfred Dickinson Barksdale Papers \n 1893-1940","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=Alfred+Dickinson+Barksdale+Papers+%0A+1893-1940\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/collection_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"date_range_isim","attributes":{"label":"Date range","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"0","value":"0","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=0\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"994","value":"994","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=994\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"995","value":"995","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=995\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"996","value":"996","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=996\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"997","value":"997","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=997\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"998","value":"998","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=998\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"999","value":"999","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=999\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"1000","value":"1000","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1000\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"1001","value":"1001","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1001\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"1002","value":"1002","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1002\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"1003","value":"1003","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1003\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/date_range_isim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"creator_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Creator","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"Ackerson, John Thaddeus, 1898-1975","value":"Ackerson, John Thaddeus, 1898-1975","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Ackerson%2C+John+Thaddeus%2C+1898-1975\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Barrett, Clifton Waller, 1901-1991","value":"Barrett, Clifton Waller, 1901-1991","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Barrett%2C+Clifton+Waller%2C+1901-1991\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Benton, Joy Kime","value":"Benton, Joy Kime","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Benton%2C+Joy+Kime\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Bernie, Frederick, fl. 1792","value":"Bernie, Frederick, fl. 1792","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Bernie%2C+Frederick%2C+fl.+1792\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Bowles, Henry Carington , 1763 - 1830","value":"Bowles, Henry Carington , 1763 - 1830","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Bowles%2C+Henry+Carington+%2C+1763+-+1830\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Bruce, Elizabeth Tunstall Taylor Newton, 1856-1940","value":"Bruce, Elizabeth Tunstall Taylor Newton, 1856-1940","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Bruce%2C+Elizabeth+Tunstall+Taylor+Newton%2C+1856-1940\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Bruce, Philip Alexander, 1856-1933","value":"Bruce, Philip Alexander, 1856-1933","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Bruce%2C+Philip+Alexander%2C+1856-1933\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Buchanan, Benjamin Franklin","value":"Buchanan, Benjamin Franklin","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Buchanan%2C+Benjamin+Franklin\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Buck , Gordon M., 1875-1970","value":"Buck , Gordon M., 1875-1970","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Buck+%2C+Gordon+M.%2C+1875-1970\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Carver, Samuel, 1756-1841","value":"Carver, Samuel, 1756-1841","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Carver%2C+Samuel%2C+1756-1841\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Clay family","value":"Clay family","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bcreators%5D%5B%5D=Clay+family\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/creator_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"names_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Names","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"Aaron Quinby","value":"Aaron Quinby","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Aaron+Quinby\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Ackerson, John Thaddeus, 1898-1975","value":"Ackerson, John Thaddeus, 1898-1975","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Ackerson%2C+John+Thaddeus%2C+1898-1975\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Adams, Henry Ward, 1861-1944","value":"Adams, Henry Ward, 1861-1944","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Adams%2C+Henry+Ward%2C+1861-1944\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Agnes Repplier","value":"Agnes Repplier","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Agnes+Repplier\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Albert A. Boyden","value":"Albert A. Boyden","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Albert+A.+Boyden\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library","value":"Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library","hits":152},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Albert+and+Shirley+Small+Special+Collections+Library\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alexander N. DeMenil","value":"Alexander N. DeMenil","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Alexander+N.+DeMenil\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alfred C. Garnett,\n                  Jr.","value":"Alfred C. Garnett,\n                  Jr.","hits":3},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Alfred+C.+Garnett%2C%0A++++++++++++++++++Jr.\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alfred C. Garnett, Jr.","value":"Alfred C. Garnett, Jr.","hits":3},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Alfred+C.+Garnett%2C+Jr.\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Algernon Charles Swinburne","value":"Algernon Charles Swinburne","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Algernon+Charles+Swinburne\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Alice Evelyn Watson","value":"Alice Evelyn Watson","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bnames%5D%5B%5D=Alice+Evelyn+Watson\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/names_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"geogname_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Places","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"Aguaruna indigenous group","value":"Aguaruna indigenous group","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Aguaruna+indigenous+group\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Albemarle County (Va.) -- Photographs.","value":"Albemarle County (Va.) -- Photographs.","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Albemarle+County+%28Va.%29+--+Photographs.\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Algoma--Dwelling","value":"Algoma--Dwelling","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Algoma--Dwelling\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Ashaninca","value":"Ashaninca","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Ashaninca\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Beaverdam Creek (Hanover County, Va.)","value":"Beaverdam Creek (Hanover County, Va.)","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Beaverdam+Creek+%28Hanover+County%2C+Va.%29\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Brunswick County (Va.)","value":"Brunswick County (Va.)","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Brunswick+County+%28Va.%29\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Campa del Pichis","value":"Campa del Pichis","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Campa+del+Pichis\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Cashibo indigenous group","value":"Cashibo indigenous group","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Cashibo+indigenous+group\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Charlottesville (Va.)","value":"Charlottesville (Va.)","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Charlottesville+%28Va.%29\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Charlottesville (Va.) -- History","value":"Charlottesville (Va.) -- History","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Charlottesville+%28Va.%29+--+History\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","value":"Charlottesville (Va.) -- History -- 19th Century","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Bplaces%5D%5B%5D=Charlottesville+%28Va.%29+--+History+--+19th+Century\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/geogname_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"access_subjects_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Subjects","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"Account books","value":"Account books","hits":3},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=Account+books\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Adolescence","value":"Adolescence","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=Adolescence\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Advertising","value":"Advertising","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=Advertising\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African American families","value":"African American families","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+American+families\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African American schools","value":"African American schools","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+American+schools\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African American students","value":"African American students","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+American+students\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African American women teachers","value":"African American women teachers","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+American+women+teachers\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African Americans","value":"African Americans","hits":2},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+Americans\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African Americans -- History -- 1863-1877","value":"African Americans -- History -- 1863-1877","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+Americans+--+History+--+1863-1877\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African Americans -- Photographs","value":"African Americans -- Photographs","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+Americans+--+Photographs\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"African Americans -- Study and teaching","value":"African Americans -- Study and teaching","hits":1},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess_subjects%5D%5B%5D=African+Americans+--+Study+and+teaching\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/access_subjects_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"level_ssim","attributes":{"label":"Level","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"Box","value":"Box","hits":52},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Blevel%5D%5B%5D=Box\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Collection","value":"Collection","hits":235},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Blevel%5D%5B%5D=Collection\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"File","value":"File","hits":1644},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Blevel%5D%5B%5D=File\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Item","value":"Item","hits":1437},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Blevel%5D%5B%5D=Item\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Series","value":"Series","hits":133},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Blevel%5D%5B%5D=Series\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"attributes":{"label":"Sub-series","value":"Sub-series","hits":124},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Blevel%5D%5B%5D=Sub-series\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/level_ssim.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"facet","id":"access","attributes":{"label":"Access","items":[{"attributes":{"label":"Online access","value":"online","hits":31},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Baccess%5D%5B%5D=online\u0026f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}}]},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog/facet/access.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept."}},{"type":"search_field","id":"all_fields","attributes":{"label":"All Fields"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=all_fields"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"keyword","attributes":{"label":"Keyword"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=keyword"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"name","attributes":{"label":"Name"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=name"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"place","attributes":{"label":"Place"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=place"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"subject","attributes":{"label":"Subject"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=subject"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"title","attributes":{"label":"Title"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=title"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"container","attributes":{"label":"Container"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=container"}},{"type":"search_field","id":"identifier","attributes":{"label":"Identifier"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026search_field=identifier"}},{"type":"sort","id":"score desc, title_sort asc","attributes":{"label":"relevance"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=score+desc%2C+title_sort+asc"}},{"type":"sort","id":"date_sort asc","attributes":{"label":"date (ascending)"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=date_sort+asc"}},{"type":"sort","id":"date_sort desc","attributes":{"label":"date (descending)"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=date_sort+desc"}},{"type":"sort","id":"creator_sort asc","attributes":{"label":"creator (A-Z)"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=creator_sort+asc"}},{"type":"sort","id":"creator_sort desc","attributes":{"label":"creator (Z-A)"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=creator_sort+desc"}},{"type":"sort","id":"title_sort asc","attributes":{"label":"title (A-Z)"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=title_sort+asc"}},{"type":"sort","id":"title_sort desc","attributes":{"label":"title (Z-A)"},"links":{"self":"https://arvasarchive.org/catalog.json?f%5Bdate_range%5D%5B%5D=1909\u0026f%5Brepository%5D%5B%5D=University+of+Virginia%2C+Special+Collections+Dept.\u0026page=349\u0026sort=title_sort+desc"}}]}