R.D. (Robert Davidson) Hufford was born in Wythe County in 1850. He studied medicine at the Medical College of Virginia and established a practice in Smyth County. In 1891, he moved to Tazewell County where he practiced until his death in 1898. Following Hufford’s death, all of his estate papers and account books were exhibits in a chancery cause heard in Tazewell County Circuit Court. Titled Foote and Johnson and others versus Administrator of R.D. Hufford and others (Tazewell County Chancery Cause 1903-043), the purpose of the suit was to settle Hufford’s estate. The estate papers and account books remained at the courthouse following the resolution of the suit. One of the ledgers eventually made its way to the Library of Virginia as part of a records transfer in the 1970s.

I came across Doctor Hufford’s account book while cataloguing the business records of Tazewell County. Looking through the pages, most entries contained scant information, e.g. “to visit … $4” or “to Rx … $1”. There were a few entries that provided some detail on the services Hufford provided.  They included treatment for fevers, amputation of limbs, removal of teeth, and numerous pregnancies. And there was the odd entry such as using electricity to treat the wife of a patient and setting the leg of a horse that, for a nineteenth century doctor, perhaps was not so odd. Hufford and his fellow doctors of that era had to be a “physician of all trades” … pediatrician, obstetrician, surgeon, dentist, gynecologist, and veterinarian.

The most striking entries found in the account book contained information that some of Hufford’s patients probably wished he would have left out and just written “to visit … $4” or “to Rx … $1”. Hufford treated thirty-four patients for sexually transmitted diseases, specifically syphilis and gonorrhea. Two of the thirty-four were husband and wife. Sexually transmitted diseases were very common in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. John Stokes, who was the chief of the Section of Dermatology and Syphilology at the Mayo Clinic wrote an essay in 1920 in which he referred to syphilis as the “third great plague” behind tuberculosis and cancer. But unlike tuberculosis and cancer, syphilis, along with gonorrhea, carried a social stigma that made treatment difficult. That stigma stemmed from the very nature of how one contracted the diseases. If it became public knowledge, a person with syphilis or gonorrhea was viewed as immoral. If the person was married, the stigma would be magnified even more because they would have been branded by society as an adulterer. Therefore, in order to avoid public disgrace, people who contracted a sexually transmitted disease chose to hide their condition. The only person who knew was their doctor and he was expected by his patient to keep quiet about it. I would imagine that many of the thirty-four were not pleased when, following Hufford’s death, his administrator came to them to collect the money they owed to Hufford’s estate for the services he rendered them.

Another set of entries I found in Doctor Hufford’s account book that his patients may not have wanted to be public knowledge related to abortion.  Doctor Hufford performed abortions for ten patients. Were the abortions performed because of complications in the pregnancies or for other reasons? It is nearly impossible to say.  Abortion was not uncommon in nineteenth century America. In the essay “Attitudes to Abortion in America, 1800-1973,” author R. Sauer cites a number of nineteenth-century sources (newspapers, physicians, the American Medical Association) expressing concerns about the increasing number of abortions. According to Sauer, abortions were concentrated among the middle and upper classes and were more common among married than unmarried women. From the small amount of information I gathered from census records, Doctor Hufford’s account book, and history books of Tazewell County, nearly all of the ten patients who had abortions were in that demographic. (I might add that the thirty-four patients who had an STD were in the same demographic.)

Doctor Hufford’s account book, along with the chancery cause Foote and Johnson and others versus Administrator of R.D. Hufford and others, have been digitally reformatted. They are available for viewing, along with the rest of the Tazewell County chancery causes (1800-1920), on the Chancery Records Index found at Virginia Memory.

-Gregory Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

Transcript of Sen. Glasgow’s letter.

(Editor’s Note: The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that scanning has now been performed on the Craig County and Pulaski County chancery causes. The digital collections are now available online through the Chancery Records Index.)

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that processing and indexing of the Craig County and Pulaski County chancery causes is now complete.  Each of Virginia’s circuit courts created chancery records that contain considerable historical and genealogical information. Because the records rely so heavily on testimony from witnesses, they offer a unique glimpse into the lives of Virginians from the early 18th century through the First World War. The indexes for both counties have been added to the Library’s online Chancery Records Index and are now available for research.

Craig County chancery covers the years 1853-1942, with the bulk of the cases falling between 1853 and 1912.  One suit of particular interest to researchers of African American education is the suit of Paris W. Compton vs. Admr. of Cornelius Compton, 1913-009, in which Paris was suing his father’s administrator to receive his inheritance.  In his bill, he states that he and his mother had moved to “Ardmore near the city of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, at which place your complainant has been attending school, for the reason that persons of his race are afforded approved, better, and more improved educational facilities and advantages than are afforded in his home state of Virginia.” Researchers may also want to take a tour through the whiskey distillery account books of Andrew McCartney and read an 1882 letter from Senator W. A. Glasgow.  The senator replied to McCartney’s complaint against a law that prohibited the sale of small amounts of liquor – less than five gallons – near an iron manufacturing company, a measure devised to stop workers from showing up drunk (see 1908-011, Admr. of Andrew McCartney vs. F. B. McCartney etc).

The majority of the suits concern issues of debt or land partition between heirs.  Through these chancery causes it is also possible to see evidence of the development of the iron ore mining and timber industries as well as hints of a slate and wool industry.  Land development companies such as the Craig City Improvement Company and the New Castle Land and Improvement Company were formed to encourage industrial growth although, as evidenced by the many chancery suits in which they became involved, many fell victim to the economic bust of the mid-1890s. 

The Pulaski County chancery causes document the years 1841-1912. While the majority of cases involve disputes over land ownership and the settlements of debts, many cases detail the area’s industries and the arrival of the Norfolk & Western Railroad. The 1880s saw the development of several iron and mining industries in Pulaski County, and many of those companies – Pulaski Iron Company, Bertha Zinc Works, Radford Iron Company, Dora Furnace – are represented in chancery causes. Researchers interested in railroad history will find several cases involving the Virginia & Tennessee and Norfolk & Western Railroad Companies. For example, in 1859 the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad was sued by a Pulaski contractor for payment for work performed on sections of the railroad.  Another example came in 1884, when Andrew Boyd and James C. Alexander successfully sued the Norfolk & Western Co. for attempting to lay tracks within fifty feet of their homes (See 1859-006, Pryde & Jones vs. Virginia & Tennessee Railroad Co. and 1884-013, Andrew Boyd, etc. vs. Norfolk & Western Railroad Co.). Land development companies, such as the Pulaski Development Co. and the Pulaski Land and Improvement Co., were formed to take advantage of the incoming railroad and the industrial growth it was expected to bring, but several chancery suits show that these companies found themselves in legal trouble when development plans fell through. Researchers may also be interested in the J. Farmer Physician Ledger, 1867-1898, kept by Pulaski physician Jerry Farmer. The ledger details services performed by Farmer and the purchases of medicines by local residents (See 1884-027, Jerry Farmer vs. Heirs of Elbert S. Trinkle).

The Craig and Pulaski County chancery causes are open and available for research at the LVA. Recent reductions to the Library of Virginia’s budget have slowed the pace of the agency’s digital chancery projects. Once funds become available, the chancery causes will be digitally reformatted and made available through the LVA’s Circuit Court Records Preservation Program. Until then the originals are available to researchers.

- Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist & Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist