MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
BY 
THOMAS G. MORTON, M.D. 
From the 
Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
THOMAS G. MORTON, M.D. 
[Read February 3, 1897.] 
In former times it was the custom, much more so than it is at 
present, for students, while attending lectures at medical schools in 
Philadelphia, to join one of the so-called “ quiz ” classes, which 
would assemble at some convenient place where examinations would 
be held upon the lectures of the day. 
Many years ago, I was invited by a friend and fellow-student to 
accompany him to one of these exercises, which happened to be 
on anatomy. I did not know the quiz-master personally, who he 
was, or even his name; but his pleasant and kindly manners, 
together with the great interest he appeared to take in the individual 
members of the class, attracted me, and before the hour was over 
I resolved to become a member of the class. I did so, and thus 
began ray acquaintance with William Hunt. Our acquaintance 
gradually ripened into friendship and this into genuine regard, 
affection, and love. This relation between Dr. Hunt and myself, 
so happily inaugurated, continued without the slightest interrup- 
tion until his death, in 1896, a period of more than forty years. 
It is, therefore, to me a source of more than gratification that 
the College of Physicians and the Academy of Surgery have 
invited me to prepare a memorial of our late fellow-member, with 
whom I had been so pleasantly and constantly associated during, 
I may say, ray entire professional life. 
William Hunt, the son of Uriah and Elizabeth Shreve Hunt, 
was born September 26, 1825, at No. 106 North Fourth Street, 
Philadelphia. He was descended from a long line of Friends 
(Quakers), his great-grandfather, William, having been widely 2 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
known as a preacher, both throughout this country and abroad, 
during the early half of the last century. The family first came 
to America about 1680. Dr. Hunt’s great-great-grandfather, with 
his four sons, came from Scotland and settled in New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania, whence they emigrated to North Carolina. In 
1815, Uriah Hunt left North Carolina to make his home in 
Philadelphia, where, as he says, he found that at that time 
“ there were not twelve of the name in the Directory.” He 
established himself as a publisher, especially of religious works 
and text-books for schools, and became a successful business man. 
He was a highly respected member of the Society of Friends all 
his life. 
Dr. Hunt’s mother was a daughter of Caleb and Margaret Don- 
aldson, and a granddaughter of Arthur Donaldson, of Revolu- 
tionary fame. William Hunt, by descent a member of the Ortho- 
dox branch of the Society of Friends, was disowned in 1843 because 
he acted as groomsman at his sister’s wedding, when the latter 
was married to a member of the Hicksite branch of the Society, 
He married, on June 3, 1856, at No. 185 (now 515) Arch Street, 
Rebecca T., daughter of Richard and Lydia Williams Price, and 
at once commenced practice at his residence on Arch Street below 
Fifth (then No. 143). They had two sons, William, Jr., and 
George Wood, both of whom survive him, and one daughter, 
Margaret Price; the early death of the latter, in 1872, was a great 
grief to the parents. 
Dr. Hunt’s early education was received at the BTiends’ Select 
School, but on account of delicate health at that time he was 
unable to enter college. He completed his education under home 
instruction, after which he entered his father’s publishing house, 
on Fourth Street below Arch, where he remained one year. As 
mercantile life was utterly distasteful to him, his business career 
was brief. His father finally yielded to his earnest desire to 
devote his life to medicine. He accordingly entered the Medical 
Department of the University of Pennsylvania, and was gradu- 
ated in the class of 1849, during which time he was a student in 
the office of Dr. George B. Wood. His thesis was upon the 
“ Treatment of Aneurism.” MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
3 
Immediately upon receiving his degree, he was appointed as sub- 
stitute for Dr. Spencer Sergeant, who was then a resident physician 
at the Pennsylvania Hospital. While still acting as substitute, he 
was elected to succeed Dr. Sergeant, whose illness had proved fatal. 
It was during his two years’ term of service at the hospital in this 
capacity that he had a severe attack of typhoid fever, and he fre- 
quently stated that his was the only case then on record of recovery 
after a perforation of the intestine. Dr. George B. Wood, in re- 
ferring to Dr. Hunt’s illness, wrote that during the course of the 
disease he “ was suddenly attacked with violent pain in the right 
iliac region, extending over the right side of the abdomen, with 
great distention, exquisite tenderness on pressure, and extreme 
frequency of the pulse. It was the opinion of Dr. Gerhard, who 
was the attending physician, and my own, that perforation had 
taken place.”1 
Dr. Hunt, in one of his clinical lectures, incidentally alluded to 
his own case, using the following words: “ While a resident physi- 
cian in 1850, in the Pennsylvania Hospital, I had an attack of 
typhoid fever, which became historic and was a theme for medical 
lecturers in their clinics for many years. I had, according to the 
opinions of most distinguished attendants (Drs. Wood, Gerhard, 
and the elder Pepper), every symptom of having perforation of 
the bowels. The accident was made out completely, but I treated 
science so disrespectfully as to get well, and so gave no opportu- 
nity to confirm the diagnosis.”2 
Dr. Hunt became Assistant Demonstrator of Anatomy in the 
University of Pennsylvania, under the late Joseph Leidy, and, 
upon the latter being made Professor of Anatomy, Dr. Hunt was 
appointed Demonstrator in 1854, a position he held for ten years. 
The warm friendship and intimacy between Prof. Leidy and Dr. 
Hunt were terminated only by the death of the former. It was 
most fittingly commemorated by Dr. Hunt’s two addresses, one 
upon the “ Personal History ” and the other upon the u University 
Career ” of Dr. Leidy, the former being delivered before the 
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, May 12, 1891, 
1 G. B, Wood’s Practice of Medicine, vol. i, p. 393, Phila., 1866. 
2 Clinical lecture on “ Injuries to the Spine,” Nov. 1881, Medical News and Abstract. 4 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
the latter before the alumni and students of the Medical Depart- 
ment of the University of Pennsylvania, on November 17, 1891. 
During two of the years of Dr. Hunt’s demonstratorship, I was 
his assistant in the dissecting-rooms. After the work in the rooms 
was concluded, each night, Dr. Hunt and I would adjourn to a 
neighboring German restaurant and spend half an hour in social 
chat on matters of mutual interest, both professional and per- 
sonal. I now look back upon that period as a most enjoyable 
part of my professional life. 
Dr. Hunt was elected to the surgical staff of the Episcopal Hos- 
pital in 1853, upon which he served ten years. During part of this 
period (from 1857) he also served at Wills Hospital for the Indi- 
gent Lame and Blind. He resigned from both the Episcopal and 
Wills Hospitals upon his election to the staff of the Pennsylvania 
Hospital, as one of the attending surgeons, in September, 1863. In 
the latter position he served continuously for thirty years, becom- 
ing Senior Surgeon of the staff upon the death of Dr. George W. 
Norris, in March, 1875. 
Among the seventy-two names upon the list of members of the 
Medical and Surgical Staff of the Pennsylvania Hospital, from 
its organization in 1750 to the present day, a period of nearly a 
century and a half, there occur only three whose term of service 
was longer than Dr. Hunt’s—Dr. Thomas Bond served thirty- 
two years ; Dr. Thomas Parke, forty-five years; and my own 
record, which is thirty-three years this month. 
It was formerly the custom of the surgeons of the hospital to 
go on duty, in rotation, for three months each year. Believing it 
better for the surgical work to have a more continuous service, Dr, 
Hunt suggested changing the period to six consecutive months, 
two of the surgeons being on duty at a time—a plan which was 
adopted about 1870 and has been since continued. Dr. Hunt was 
also Consulting Surgeon of the Pennsylvania Institution for the 
Deaf and Dumb and attending Surgeon to the Orthopfedic Hos- 
pital. From the latter he resigned in the fall of 1889. He was 
appointed one of the Governors of the Gynecean Hospital of 
Philadelphia in 1889. 
Dr. Hunt became a member of the American Medical Associa- MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
5 
tiou in 1852 and a Fellow of the College of Physicians in 1854. 
He was elected a member of the Museum Committee in 1857 and 
Curator in 1858 ; in 1863 he was made a member of the Mutter 
Museum Committee, temporary Curator in 1874, and Chairman from 
1879 to 1895. He became a member of the Academy of Natural 
Sciences of Philadelphia in 1855, and of the Philadelphia County 
Medical Society in 1876; a Fellow of the Philadelphia Academy of 
Surgery in 1879, and its President from January, 1891, to January, 
1895. On his retirement from office, the thanks of the Academy 
were tendered him for his faithful and valued service and his con- 
siderate and courteous performance of his duties as presiding 
officer. He was a Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania 
from 1879 to 1895, and he was elected an Honorary Member 
of the American Surgical Association in 1882. He was also a 
Director of the Philadelphia Contributionship, a fire insurance 
association, from 1882 to 1895. He was elected a member of 
the Society of the Sons of the Revolution in 1890. In the 
records of that society it is noted that he was a great-grandson 
of Arthur Donaldson, who was engineer in charge of the defences 
of the Delaware River during the Revolutionary War. 
Dr. Hunt was one of the original incorporators of the Micro- 
scopical and Biological Section of the Academy of Natural 
Sciences, and in its early days was one of the most active mem- 
bers. He was also a member of the Alumni Society of the 
Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania, of the 
Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and of other organizations. 
He was one of the original members of the former Biological Club 
of this city, which merits a few words in digression. 
The “ Biological Club” was a social organization formed among 
the members of the Academy of Natural Sciences about 1859, dur- 
ing the time of activity in the biological section. The meetings of 
the club were held in rotation at the residences of the members, 
and were very informal, and, at first, the refreshments were 
crackers and cheese, and ale. The rigid sumptuary laws of the 
early days, however, did not last; the simple fare expanded into 
a supper, to be succeeded about 1870 by a dinner. For over 
thirty years the club continued to meet regularly, without the loss 6 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
of a member, thirteen members being generally present. It finally 
dissolved, principally owing to losses by death. 
Dr. Hunt was also one of the original members of the “ Sur- 
gical Club,” which was organized in 1877 by a few Philadelphia 
surgeons, among whom were Agnew, the two Grosses—father and 
son—Levis, Maury, and Reed, and no additions were ever made 
to the original membership. It was designed as a serai-social 
scientific association, meeting twice a month at the members’ 
houses, when interesting cases were presented and informally dis- 
cussed. Following this there were simple refreshments and social 
intercourse. Two years later, in 1879, when its members formed 
the present Philadelphia Academy of Surgery, the u Surgical Club” 
was made entirely a social organization. The surviving mem- 
bers continue to meet occasionally during the winter season to 
dine together. 
Dr. Hunt was eminently social in his disposition and was always 
a welcome guest at the Wistar and other parties, and on less formal 
occasions among his professional friends. But the one entertain- 
ment which gave him probably the greatest pleasure was the “ Syl- 
vester Eve” gathering each year at the home of Dr, Albert Pricke. 
These were charming evenings, quite unique and ever to be remem- 
bered, where wit and genial humor prevailed, and to be noted as 
extraordinary in their bountiful hospitality. 
At the close of each year the same chosen few assembled to bid 
adieu to the old year and to welcome the new. From time to time 
a vacant place was noticed, and, among those missed during recent 
years, there was none whose absence was more sincerely regretted 
than Seideusticker, Leidy, and Hunt. Dr. Hunt was present on 
the eve of the new year of 1895, and this occasion was the last 
time that he was an evening absent from his home. 
Dr. Hunt was appointed an Acting Assistant Surgeon of the 
United States Army, May 16, 1862, serving until October 31, 
1863, when, as shown by the records of the War Office at AVash- 
ington, his contract terminated. He had been previously detailed 
by Surgeon-General Henry H. Smith, of the Pennsylvania A7ol- 
unteer Service, for duty at St. Joseph’s Hospital, Philadelphia, 
April 18, 1862, in caring for the wounded soldiers. MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M .D. 
7 
In December, 1862, Dr, Hunt wrote to the Sanitary Commis- 
sion expressing his willingness to “co-operate in its examination 
into the condition and wants of the United States Military Hos- 
pitals,” and under date of March 30, 1863, his proposition was 
accepted and he was directed to make a tour of the service. He 
was consequently appointed a 11 Special Inspector of the General 
Hospitals of the Army,” and in that capacity was entitled to all 
the benefits of the order of the Secretary of War, dated June 13, 
1861, directing and enjoining all persons in the employment of the 
United States forces to respect and further the inquiries and objects 
of this commission to the utmost of their ability. His commis- 
sion received the indorsement of the Surgeon-General of the United 
States Array. Dr. Hunt was instructed to report on April 15th, 
at New Haven, Connecticut, to inspect the general hospitals at 
that place, and thence, successively and in the order most conve- 
nient, to examine the army hospitals at Newport, Portsmouth 
Grove, Boston, Massachusetts; Brattleboro and Burlington, Ver- 
mont, for the remainder of the month, concluding with the direc- 
tion to visit and examine in a general way the hospitals at Newark, 
N. J, He was on duty in active service at Frederick City, Mary- 
land, from September 21st to 26th, On the latter date he was 
ordered back to Philadelphia to assume the duties of Acting As- 
sistant Surgeon at the Fifth and Buttonwood Street United States 
Army Hospital. On October 14,1862, he was relieved from duty at 
this hospital and assigned to duty at the new hospital for wounded 
officers at Camac’s Woods, Philadelphia (now Eleventh and Norris 
Streets). It was during this service that Dr. Hunt’s contention 
that it is not the duty of physicians, serving in hospitals on con- 
tract, to attend sick and wounded officers out of hospitals, without 
compensation, was upheld by the Surgeon-General of the United 
States Army, in a communication dated October 7, 1862. 
Many of the wounded officers rested in Philadelphia for treat- 
ment, en route to their respective homes, and it was at the house of 
Morris L. Hallowed, No, 912 Walnut Street, who for this pur- 
pose generously gave up his own private dwelling (called by Oliver 
Wendell Holmes the u House Beautiful ”), that Dr. Hunt and Dr. 
Thomas G. Mortou attended Colonel Norwood Penrose Hallowed, 8 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
Colonel Edward Needles Hallowell, Colonel Francis W. Palfrey, 
Captain Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, (now Judge Holmes, of the 
Supreme Court of Massachusetts), and many others, all officers in 
the army. In a characteristic punning letter to Dr. Hunt, Dr. 
Holmes afterward acknowledged the services to his son with “Good- 
by, my kind friend and my son’s friend, whom I have delicately 
commemorated in my ‘ Hunt after the Captain.’ ” Later, as a 
further evidence of appreciation, he sent him author’s copies of 
all his works published to that date, May, 1863. 
Dr. Hunt for a number of years was one of the editorial staff 
of the Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences, still published in 
this city, and was also a rare but highly esteemed contributor to 
the American Journal of the Medical Sciences. In the Trans- 
actions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia are several 
commuuications from the pen of Dr. Hunt. Among the special 
articles of which he was the author may be mentioned “A Memoir 
of George W, Norris, M.D., Vice-President of the College of 
Physicians, etc., 1876 ; ” “ Popular Fallacies about Surgery,’’ Dip- 
pincott’s Magazine, December, 1881; “ The Rights of a Consultant 
to Compensation,” Medical News, December 15, 1888 ; “ Diabetic 
Gangrene,” Transactions of the Philadelphia County Medical So- 
ciety, November 28, 1888. 
In reference to the paper on “ Diabetic Gangrene” it may be 
stated that Dr. John S. Billings, in acknowledging, under date of 
February 1, 1889, a copy which had been sent to the Library of 
the Surgeon-General’s Office, Washington, wrote: “ I have read 
the paper with much interest. I know of no other American 
paper on the subject.” He also edited Wilson’s Dissector's Manual 
in 1858, and in conjunction with Dr. Thomas G. Morton com- 
piled a History of Surgery in the Pennsylvania Hospital, 1880.1 
1 The titles of all the articles contributed by Dr. Hunt to medical literature, etc , as far 
as can be ascertained are as follows : 
“On Phosphorus Necrosis,” American Journal Med, Sciences, vol. xlix., 1865. 
“On Ossification of the Crystalline Lens,” American Journal Med. Sciences, vol. xlviii., 
1865. 
“ Death from Hemorrhage, Caused by a Sharp Sequestrum Cutting the Popliteal Artery,” 
American Journal Med. Sciences, vol. 1., 1865. 
“Case of Coexistence of Tetanus and Paralysis,” American Journal Med. Sciences, New 
Series, vol. xlv., 1863. 
“On Fractures of the Larynx and Raptures of the Trachea,” American Journal Med. 
Sciences, Article IX., April, 1866. MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
9 
Some thirty years ago, when it was decided to publish the Penn- 
sylvania Hospital Reports, Dr. Hunt, with Dr, J. M. Da Costa, 
undertook the labor of editing them, and he contributed person- 
ally several clinical papers to the volumes published in 1868 and 
1869, when the series was discontinued. He also contributed 
articles to the International Encyclopcedia of Surgery and assisted 
in preparing the American edition of Holmes’s System of Surgery. 
His interest in geueral medicine and in science was shown by his 
membership in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 
(being one of the incorporators of the Microscopical Section of this 
“ Physiological Observations and Experiments on a Case of Large Artificial Anus, with an 
Account of the Surgical and Mechanical Efforts to Cure,” Penn. Hosp. Reports, vol. i., 1868. 
“ A Contribution to the History of Toxaemia,” Penn. Hosp. Reports, vol. i., 1868. 
“ Fatal Chorea. Death Consequent on the Aggravation Caused by a Simple Fracture of 
the Humerus,” Penn. Hosp. Reports, vol. ii., 1869. 
“ Extracts from Clinical Lectures,” Penn. Hosp Reports, vol. ii., 1869. 
“ The (Morton) Ward Carriage,” Penn. Hosp. Reports, vol. ii, 1869. 
“Traumatic Rupture of the Urethra,” Philadelphia Med. Times, 1871. 
“ Unusual Surgical Cases,” Philadelphia Med. Times, 1872. 
“Clinical Notes and Reflections,” Philadelphia Med. Times, 1875. 
“A Memoir of George W. Norris, M.D.,” Transactions College of Physicians, 1876. 
“On Inequality in Length of the Lower Limbs, etc.,” American Journal of Med. Sciences, 
January, 1879 
“ Letter on the Case of President Garfield,” Med. News and Abstract, November, 1881. 
“ Clinical Lecture on Injuries of the Spine,” Med News and Abstract, November, 1881. 
“ Popular Fallacies about Surgery,” Lippineott’s Magazine, December, 1881. 
“ Foetal Burns during Advanced Pregnancy, the Burns of the Mother apparently impress- 
ing themselves on the Child in utero,” American Journal Med. Sciences, January, 1881. 
“Esmarch: Antisepsis and Bacillus,” Medical News, January, 1883. 
“ Discoveries in Regard to Bacilli,” Medical News, 1884. 
“ The Rights of a Consultant to Compensation,” Medical News, 1888. 
“ Diabetic Gangrene,” Trans. Philadelphia County Med. Society, November, 1888. 
“ Health Gymnastics at Baden-Baden,” Philadelphia, 1888. 
“Vesical, Urethral, and Preputial Calculi,” in Keating’s Cyclopaedia of the Diseases of 
Children, vol. iii. p. 596. Philadelphia, 1890. 
“In Memoriam: Dr. Joseph Leidy, Personal History,” read at the Academy of Natural 
Sciences, May 12,1891. 
“An Address upon the late Joseph Leidy, M.D., LL.D., His University Career,” read before 
the Alumni and Students of the University of Pennsylvania (Medical Department), Novem- 
ber 17,1891. 
“Address before the Graduating Class of Nurses, St. Luke’s Hospital, Bethlehem,” 1893. 
“ Cystic Growth within the Internal Condyle of the Femur,” Transactions of the Amer- 
ican Surgical Association. [By Drs. Morton and Hunt.] 
In Holmes’ System of Surgery, first American from second English Edition, Philadelphia, 
1881, Dr. Hunt revised the following articles : “Erysipelas,” Campbell D. Morgan, F.R S ; 
“ Pysemia,” George W. Callender, Esq. 
To the International Encyclopaedia of Surgery, vol. i., New York, 1886, Dr. Hunt con- 
tributed the article on “ Traumatic Delirium and Delirium Tremens ” 
Dr Hunt, with Dr. Morton, prepared the articles on “ Orthopaedic Surgery,” for series 1888 
and 1889 of the Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences, edited by Dr. Sajous, Philadelphia. 10 
THOMAS Q. MORTON, 
organization), and also by his membership in the American Medical 
Association, to which he was elected a delegate from the College 
of Physicians on five different occasions. 
During the period of painful suspense that followed the wound- 
ing of President Garfield and the controversies, in which both 
medical and lay press joined, with regard to the proper manage- 
ment of gunshot-injuries of the vertebrae, and the criticism of the 
actual methods adopted by the physicians in charge of the distin- 
guished patient, were engaging the attention of surgeons all over 
the world, Dr. Hunt, aroused especially by what he considered to 
be some very unjust aspersions upon the attendants on the case by 
a noted German surgeon, wrote several articles in defence of Ameri- 
can surgery, which were widely published. It was in connection 
with this subject that Dr. Oliver Y/endell Holmes wrote to Dr. 
Hunt, and, as the letter is written in the characteristic style of the 
Philosopher of the Breakfast-table, I will take the liberty of in- 
troducing it here, the more willingly because it contains some 
autobiographical references which should not be lost: 
Boston, November 18,1881. 
“ Dear Dr. Hunt: I received Lippincott (which I intended 
to have bought, of course) this day, and sat down at once and 
read your article in it. I was greatly interested in it, as all 
medical and semi-medical readers must certainly be. I think 
the average reader of the Atlantic, who is more literary than 
scientific, would consider it rather professional for that magazine. 
“ I am pleased to say that I have also found, this same day, in 
a pile of pamphlets, which came on me like an avalanche, “On 
Injuries of the Spine” and “Correspondence,” which you were 
kind enough to send me with your regards. I believe that I told 
you that I had until within a few days been very busy with my 
memoranda for the Memorial History of Boston. I got off ray 
second revise yesterday, so that I could sit down in peace and 
read both your articles deliberately, which I did after finishing the 
one in Lippincott. I could not help being interested in these, as 
you may well suppose. Your theory or argument relating to the 
part played by the sympathetic in injuries to the bones on which MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M .D. 
11 
the chain of ganglions lie seems to me entirely reasonable. It is 
just what ought to have been thought of, but I think you have the 
merit of first suggesting it. 
“ Your letter about President Garfield’s case is excellent and 
will be most acceptable to the profession, I have no doubt, I read 
every word of it with great pleasure, agreeing with all you said. 
“I am an outsider in every point of view, and I have not for- 
gotten the Dutch saying, of which, in fact, I am rather fond— 
< The man on the dike bowls well.’ But I cannot help remember- 
ing some of my own oracular dicta delivered from the domestic 
tripod, two of which are called to mind by your pages. In the 
early days of the President’s wound I, too, said and repeated 
until it bored the household, ‘whereof he languished, and lan- 
guishing did die.’ I, too, suggested to my fireside audience that 
the thoracic duct might have been injured, which would account 
for the great emaciation. (I remembered the ease of Calvin Edson, 
the living skeleton.) 
“I, also, sitting on the dike, proposed to fitting, not promis- 
cuous hearers, the enemata of defibrinated blood, which a day or 
two afterward I saw had been administered. So you see what a 
doctor was lost when I took to writing verses and stories. 
“ But let me close my letter by thanking }7ou, most sincerely 
and heartily, for the great pleasure and the abundant instruction 
which your most valuable papers have afforded me. Believe me, 
dear Dr. Hunt, Faithfully yours, 
“ 0. W. Holmes.” 
In connection with the same subject I have also found, among 
the private papers of our late Fellow, several very interesting letters 
(which, like the preceding, have never been published) from our 
former President, Dr. D. Hayes Agnew, one of which contains 
certain comments upon the wound of President Garfield and 
upon the pathology of this class of injuries, and especially upon 
the influence of the psoas magnus muscle in concealing gunshot- 
wounds of the lumbar vertebrse, which really constitutes a prac- 
tical contribution to the literature of this department of surgery. 
Dr. Agnew writes : 12 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
“ My dear Hunt: The (President’s) case is a very plain one 
and demands no unusual skill to manage, as you well understand. 
It was a grave injury at the start, and continues to be so, and, 
while by no ttieans hopeless, the result, in ray judgment, is very 
doubtful. The popular mind cannot, of course, understand, what 
is so clear to you and me, that even though a bullet may not enter 
the serous cavity of the chest or abdomen, yet in traversing the 
line of both of these cavities outside of the pleura and peritoneum 
immense damage may be done. The track of the ball has been 
traced from the point of entrance behind the eleventh rib through 
the loin and forward beyond the anterior border of the iliac fossa; 
this would make a distance of at least sixteen inches. The simple 
state of things is this: that, at the time the first operation was per- 
formed, when rigors, sweating, and high temperature occurred, the 
President became septicremic, and all the phenomena since have 
been due to this. There is no evidence, however, of any metas- 
tatic abscesses, no chest symptoms, and no kidney trouble, and 
consequently he may, possibly, weather it yet.” 
“August 23, 1881. 
“ October 8, 1881. 
“ Dear Dr. Hunt : There are bnt two points which I think 
you have omitted, which have any material bearing on the subject. 
“ First. The influence of the psoas magnus in concealing shot- 
wounds of the lumbar vertebrae, at least wounds of entrance. 
“ Second. The thoroughness of the drainage secured by prop- 
erly planned incisions. 
u You are right in regard to no exploration having been made 
by the consulting surgeons on being called to Washington two 
days after the shooting, although Bliss, in his slipshod article in 
the Record, says such explorations were made. You are right, 
also, in stating that the nervous symptoms were chiefly in the 
right limb and altogether on the right side of the scrotum. I 
may also say that the early disappearance of these symptoms ; the 
absence of any loss of power in the lower extremities; the general 
direction of all instruments used in explorations of the wound, 
for washing, being downward; the appearance of a well-defined 
ecchymosis over the abdominal parietes a few days after the acci- MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M .D. 
13 
dent, above the anterior superior spinous process of the ileum, with 
corresponding tenderness to pressure, and the tingling of the left 
scrotum favored the opinion that the ball might be in the walls of 
the abdomen in the above locality, though, as I said to you before, 
I never pretended to know where the ball was. There was no psoas 
abscess. The opening in vertebree was not discovered until the 
psoas muscle was laid open. Your friend truly, 
“ D. Hayes Agnew. ” 
With regard to a disputed point in the published account of the 
case, Dr. Agnew confirmed Dr, Hunt’s statement in the following 
letter: 
“Dear Dr. Hunt : You are right; no examination was made 
by tiie consulting surgeons at the time of their visit. They were 
informed that careful explorations had been made at the time of 
the shooting by Bliss and by Wales. Bliss admits that he com- 
mitted an error on this point, writing, as he did, in New York 
and without any notes to refer to. 
“ December 5,1882. 
“ I have examined all accessible sources and find no case of per- 
forating shot-wound of the vertebrse which did not prove fatal, 
and I think you may challenge Esmarch to produce from the 
records of surgery a case of recovery in which this injury was 
positively determined. Remember and draw a distinction be- 
tween perforating and all other shot-injuries of the spine. In- 
deed, few of any degree recover. Your friend truly, 
“D, Hayes Agnew.” 
If we recall the time when this celebrated case was the general 
topic for discussion among surgeons, we may better understand how 
Dr. Hunt was led to enter the lists both by his patriotic desire 
to uphold the credit of American surgery and by loyalty to his 
friend Agnew, whom he considered to be held up to censure in a 
elinical lecture in which Prof. Esmarch had reviewed and sharply 
criticised the treatment of the distinguished patient by his medical 
attendants. 
When the closure of the lying-in wards of the Pennsylvania 14 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
Hospital was under discussion, the assertion was unjustly made in 
a medical journal that the cause of this action was the great preva- 
lence of puerperal fever, which had been attended by unusual mor- 
tality, in this institution. Dr., Hunt wrote a letter to Prof. S. D. 
Gross upon this subject, which well illustrates his ability as a writer 
and his skill in presenting the facts and argument in as few words 
as possible and keeping directly to the point. With his published 
communication on “Hospitalism” it forms a really valuable 
addition to the controversy upon the relation of puerperal fever to 
infection. 
About the same time that this letter was written Dr. Hunt had 
published a communication in the Philadelphia Medical Times on 
the subject of “ Hospitalism,” defending the institution with 
which he had been prominently connected for many years from 
the sweeping charges of maladministration made by an essayist 
belonging to the Public Health Association. (This also appears 
in Surgery in the Pennsylvania Hospital, p. 342 et seq.) 
Dr. Hunt’s contributions to medical literature show that his 
writings were never prepared in an egotistic spirit, to bring him- 
self or his views into prominence, but were always inspired with 
a desire to refute error or to advance the cause of science. Dr. 
Hunt’s sense of humor was very keen and he was fond of repartee, 
clever jests, and witticisms, this being shown by his writings as 
well as his daily conversation. An illustration of his appreciation 
of the ridiculous aspect of even serious questions is afforded by 
the following unsigned communication which he sent to the editor 
of the Medical News : 
“To the Editor of The Medical News : 
“ Magdeburg, January 81,1884. 
“Sir: I have thought that some account of the recent discov- 
eries in regard to bacilli might interest readers who are remote from 
the great radiating centres of constructive science. The latest of 
o O 
these discoveries is even yet spoken of here with caution; but by 
the time you have printed this it will have revolutionized one 
branch of physiology and produced an evolution of novel ideas, 
the final results of which not the boldest can predict. But before 
outlining for your readers a discovery which I am privileged to MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
15 
communicate by permission of Prof. Coccischlachter, and before 
it has been fully published at home, it may be well to describe the 
Krankheitenursprungsanstalt’s Museum of Bacilli collected by the 
Herr Ober-Professor Keimerzeuger von Verdammt-Narrburg. 
“ This has been done at the cost of more than one life upon the 
altar of science. The museum is a room about thirty feet square, 
with double walls of glass, between which circulates water kept at 
a temperature of 30° C. by three gigantic thermostats, which are 
so accurate that the heat does not vary the one-fiftieth of a degree. 
Ranged along the sides, exposed to air or under glasses, are hun- 
dreds of half-potatoes on which grow various bacilli; of late, how- 
ever, boiled cabbage is said by Keimerzeuger to answer better. 
Certain specific cocci flourish on the Beta altissima or mangel- 
wurzel, but as to this choice of cultur-gartens more is to be said. 
To walk through this museum with the Herr Professor Keimer- 
zeuger is interesting. Before entering a mask is given you and 
a bottle of condensed oxygen, so as to enable you not to inhale the 
atmosphere loaded with germs. In tones muffled by the need to 
speak within the mouth-piece you learn that to the left is a tuber- 
cular potato, its surface gray with the potencies of countless deaths. 
Near it the bacillus of rheumatism flourishes on the cut surface of 
the succulent beet beside the ruddy germs of specific disease. Scar- 
let fever infests this potato, diphtheria that. The new bacterium of 
pneumonia flourishes on a boiled watermelon, and glanders, cholera, 
smallpox, and hydrophobia spread in tiny greenish growths over 
the little gardens of gelatin. For a moment, in my interest I dis- 
placed my mask. The Professor instantly seized me and hurried 
me from the room. ‘ What a risk !’ he said ; ‘my last assistant 
did as you did, and died in seven days of acute phthisis with symp- 
toms of hydrophobia and whooping-cough, combined in horrible 
equality.’ I did not desire to re-enter this box of Pandora. In 
adjoining apartments of less size are the experimental cultivations, 
—those which are still in doubt. Among the most interesting is 
the micrococcus of gout, found to flourish best upon gelatinized 
turtle-soup. 
“A most striking practical result has grown out of some of 
Coccischlachter’s and Keimerzeuger’s later researches. They have 16 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
been able to show that the bacterium of colic flourishes on the 
green apple, which accounts for the gripes experienced by youth- 
ful gourmands. But far more remarkable is the fact that certain 
micrococci and bacteria die, as proved by Coccischlachter, in some 
culture-materials and thrive, as shown by Keimerzeuger, on others. 
Thus the tubercle-bacilli flourish on boiled cabbage (Keimerzeu- 
ger), but perish on moist sauer-kraut (Coccischlachter); so that by 
a persistent diet of the latter article they have been able to saturate 
some of their devoted assistants up to the point of insusceptibility— 
a discovery which will, we trust, put an end to the cavils at the 
failure of these researches to yield practical results ” 
In October, 1893, Dr. Hunt gave an address at St. Luke’s Hos- 
pital, at Bethlehem, Pa., in which he related an incident which 
happened many years ago at the Pennsylvania Hospital, and which 
he always said was one of the most ludicrous he had met with, 
among many, in his long experience. 
“ Those of you,” says Dr. Hunt, “who are familiar with the 
story of Rah and his Friends can fully realize the relations 
between the surgeon, the poor cancer-stricken patient, and the 
students. The author most touchingly and truthfully pictures 
scenes which are familiar in every general hospital. Sometimes 
these scenes are highly amusing in the midst of the tragedy. 
“ The idea of anything amusing in a hospital ! 
“ I had occasion to amputate the thigh of a negro in the clinic. 
There was a large audience. I knew nothing of the previous his- 
tory of the patient. The operation was over. The stump was 
sewed up, but not yet washed. I had on my apron, which was 
pretty well stained. The patient was let up out of the ether. 
Slowly he raised his head aud took a deliberate view of the bloody 
stump, then, addressing me in a tragic voice: fße thy intents 
wicked or charitable ?’ 1 Charitable,’ I said. ‘ Thou contest in 
such a questionable shape,’ aud as he was being wheeled out of the 
room he called back, ‘Hamlet, King, father, Royal Dane,’ amidst 
the laughter and uproar of the class. He made a good recovery. 
Here the laughter was allowable ; the farce succeeded the tragedy, 
the unconscious humor of the patient over his own case took away MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
17 
for a moment the pity of it. I have known the highest tension 
of the operator relieved by some pleasantly whispered conceit of a 
bystander or assistant. So humor has a place even in a hospital. 
It is not always necessary to be ‘dressed in an opinion of wisdom, 
gravity, profound conceit.’ ” 
Early in October, 1886, Dr. Hunt, with Dr. Leidy and a number 
of Philadelphians, made a visit to Luray Cave and the Natural 
Bridge of Virginia. The object of the visit was to select and dedi- 
cate a column in the cave to Dr. Leidy. A preliminary tour was 
made of the cave by the party in order to select the column, after 
which the Natural Bridge was explored. The stalactite selected 
was very large, and, indeed, was said to be the largest in the 
world. On reaching the column in the cave Dr. Hunt, as chair- 
man of the committee, made the following short address : 
“ This column and that stalactite in the caverns of Luray are 
dedicated to Professor Joseph Leidy. May they thus aid to per- 
petuate the name of one who, holding communion with the visible 
forms of nature, has so learned to interpret her grand simplicity 
that to hear him is to understand. 
“From now on these objects will be known as the ‘Leidy 
column ’ and the ‘ Leidy stalactite.’ ” 
The scene as Dr. Leidy stepped to the front was an impressive 
one. He was surrounded by loving and admiring friends, and the 
dark shadows and fantastic images from the torch-lighted stalac- 
tites thrown over the party made a scene not soon to be forgotten. 
His voice trembled with emotion, but grew stronger as he pro- 
ceeded to thank the company for the honor done him in naming 
one of nature’s wonders after him, following his remarks by saying 
that monuments made of stone had never met his approval, but 
under such a monument he would gladly repose after his work was 
done. 
With the exception of the attack of typhoid fever at the outset 
of his medical life, already mentioned, and the illness resulting from 
the injury received late in life, Dr. Hunt enjoyed exceptionally 
robust health. One curious fact, however, must not be overlooked 
—Dr. Hunt was extremely susceptible to certain bad odors, and 
was made ill promptly by them. In his article entitled “A Con- 18 
THOMAS G. MORTON, 
tribution to the History of Toxaemia” he relates that “while 
remarkably sensitive to the effects of poisonous plants, such as the 
varieties of rhus, I have never yet had so much as an augry pustule 
arising from various scratches, punctures, and abrasions received 
from instruments and bony spicula while making dissections or 
performing operations,” yet he was several times made seriously 
ill by effluvia or noxious emanations from the human body. In 
this article Hr. Hunt says “the train of symptoms was so exactly 
alike in the different attacks that I am sure that there can be no 
mistake as to the cause, and, as I do not remember to have read of 
similar cases, it may be well to record mine as a contribution to 
the history of blood-poisoning and as an illustration of the hazards 
of hospital and professional life.” In later years Hr. Hunt was 
always exceedingly careful to avoid placing himself where he would 
be exposed to a recurrence of his former serious experience. 
On March 4, 1887, Hr. Hunt met with a grave accident. While 
crossing the street in the early evening, he was knocked down and 
run over by some passing wagon and received an injury to the 
cervical vertebrae (which was then believed to be a fracture); also 
several scalp wounds and probably intracranial injuries. He was 
confined to bed for several months, and, his health having been 
greatly impaired, he subsequently went to Europe. At Baden- 
Baden he took a course of gymnastic treatment, by which he was 
benefited so much that he was able to resume to some degree the 
active duties of his profession upon his return home in the fall of 
that year. His experience at Baden-Baden was the subject of his 
widely read pamphlet on Health Gymnastics at Baden-Baden, 
Philadelphia, 1888. He went abroad again in 1889, and greatly 
enjoyed visiting the London hospitals. On his return home he 
continued in active practice until 1892, when, his health again 
being impaired, we spent a month together on a trip to Florida. 
One year later the effect of the injuries received, in 1887 so dis- 
abled him that he was compelled finally to retire, and he also 
resigned the various positions in which he had been a zealous 
worker up to that time. He gradually declined in health, and 
died at his home, where he had lived for thirty-five years, at the 
southwest corner of Thirteenth and Spruce Streets, Philadelphia, MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
19 
on April 17, 1896, in the seventy-first year of his age. He was 
buried at Laurel Hill Cemetery. 
In early life Dr. Hunt had been rather delicate and spare in 
figure, although of later years he grew quite stout as he became 
less active in habits. He was of average height; his face was gen- 
erally ruddy and constantly wore a pleasing expression ; his feat- 
ures were attractive aud regular, although not finely cut. His 
eyes were blue and most intelligent, often twinkling with mirth. 
He was brimful of jokes aud made ready puns. We all remember 
with pleasure, and were ready to hear, “Hunt’s stories,” which were 
very often based on trivial incidents occurring in his personal expe- 
rience. He was an attractive and instructive lecturer, a judicious 
aud safe operator, and considered a consultant of excellent judg- 
ment. His thorough knowledge of anatomy, which he loved pro- 
foundly, together with his clear perception and extensive clinical 
experience, coupled with a pre-eminently conservative nature, all 
combined to make him a successful surgeon. 
Dr. Hunt was also fond of general literature, and, having an 
excellent memory, he retained what he read. In his writings he 
had not only a good English style, but also one eminently charac- 
teristic. He perfectly mastered the German language, which he 
spoke fluently. 
Dr. Hunt was an intense lover of nature and quite an amateur 
botanist. During his summer journeyings he studied flowers, and 
especially wild flowers, aud he gave great pleasure to those about 
him in demonstrating those beauties of plant-growth, which, per- 
haps, scarcely visible to the unaided eye, could be easily recognized 
through the small but powerful lens which he always carried in 
his vest-pocket. 
Dr. Hunt had a kind and cheering word for all, rich or poor, 
with whom he came in contact; especially was this so with the 
patients of the hospital wards, many of whom came to him after 
their recovery to express their gratitude, often tendering him, with 
their thanks, some trifling object. No one ever heard Dr. Hunt 
speak harshly; but his was a kindly way with everyone, and it was 
this natural, gentle, assuring manner that made him so welcome by 
the sick-bed and in the wards of the hospitals. He was a wise 20 
MEMOIR OF WILLIAM HUNT, M.D. 
counsellor and an honest man in every relation of life; he was 
esteemed and beloved by all who had the privilege of his friend- 
ship, and all who knew him will bear testimony to his retiring, 
modest, unselfish, and noble character. 
Although averse to forms and ceremonials, and not what is com- 
monly known as a churchman, yet Dr. Hunt was a consistent 
believer in the principles and tenets held by the members of the 
Society of Friends, with whom he always affiliated. The fol- 
lowing brief but comprehensive declaration of faith was recently 
found among his papers, in his own handwriting : 
As in the driven leaves of the autumn’s morn, 
So in the thunder of the battle’s storm, 
Source of my faith, I acknowledge Thee ; 
God, I acknowledge Thee; 
Father, bless Thou me.