THE LIFE OF  DR. JAMES TYLER KENT


  On March 31st 1849, at Woodhull, New York State, in the United States of America, a son, James Tyler, was born to Stephen KENT and his wife CAROLINE.


  This son was to attend the Franklin School in Prattsburgh for his primary schooling and to go on to the Woodhull Academy in the town of his birth to complete his secondary education.  At the age of nineteen, James Tyler KENT graduated from Madison University at Hamilton, New York State, with Ph.B. degree; this was followed two years later by that of A.M. from the same university.  He then went on to study medicine at the Faculty of Bellevue Medical College where he passed his final examination brilliantly and qualified as a doctor of medicine.  He subsequently attended two courses of lectures at the Eclectic Medical Institute at Cincinnati in the State of Ohio.


  This eclectic school taught the same branches of medicine as in Europe: anatomy, histology, physiology, pathological anatomy, etc., and also offered the same clinical teaching.


  The therapeutic teaching of this Eclectic Medical Institute was much more comprehensive than that of the official Allopathic school.  Allopathy, Homœopathy, Naturopathy, Chiropraxy, as well as various other methods (hence the term “Eclectic”)  little known or quite unknown in Europe at that time, were taught. But all subjects, and especially Homœopathy, were taught very superficially  and as a result  KENT  was neither impressed nor convinced by this latter therapeutic  method.


  We must remember that such Eclectic teaching, which imparted to its students a genuine tolerance of the various therapeutic methods, although of advantage to some, caused quite serious difficulties to others, since it did not extol one method and claim its superiority over the others.  Thus the student was left to make his own free choice of method according to his personal inclination or based on influences to which he had been exposed or the force of circumstances.


  At the age of 26 KENT married an American girl who was, like himself, a Baptist.  He began his professional career in St. Louis (State of Missouri) as a practitioner of the Eclectic School of medicine.  An austere man, of great integrity, he was a very conscientious physician who worked exceedingly hard.  In addition to his practice he was active as a writer, making contributions, and being connected with several eclectic journals of the time.  In addition he participated in the councils of Eclectic National Medical Association of which he was regarded as a most valued member.


  Although an undemonstrative man KENT adored his wife and he was deeply troubled about the worsening state of her health; a state of debility, langour, anaemia and persistent insomnia had kept her bedridden for months.  It was at this time that KENT underwent a period of considerable dissatisfaction with the therapeutic methods being practiced by himself and his colleagues.  Neither his own eclectic practitioners nor those of the allopathic school could bring about an improvement in his wife’s condition.  When it became visibly worse, Mrs.KENT begged him, as a last resort, to call in a certain homœopathic doctor, well on in years, who had been recommended to her as being highly competent.  KENT looked a little askance at this suggestion as he had already consulted every physician of repute in St. Louis.  Being faced with a condition which was growing every day more serious he considered it ridiculous to resort to Homœopathy (of the kind he had been taught during the course taken at the Eclectic Medical School), about which he was by no means convinced and whose minute doses appeared to him to be absurd for a case as serious as that of his wife’s.  However, he bowed to her insistence, at the same time expressing a wish to be present at the consultation.


  The homœopath, Dr.PHELAN, goatee-ed and dressed in a frock coat, arrived one afternoon in his barouche.  He questioned the patient for over an hour, asking her about her antecedents, her past illnesses, accidents, her mental state, and her fears and her cravings. He elicited from her many  details regarding her likes and dislikes about food although she had complained of no digestive troubles.  He asked her minute details about her indispositions, her reaction to cold and heat and to climatic and seasonal factors.  KENT found the questions so odd and seemingly inappropriate that, as he leaned on the side of the bed,  he could not refrain from smiling.


  Having auscultated and examined the patient, Dr.PHELAN asked for a glass of water and KENT brought it.  He then saw Dr. PHELAN drop a few minute globules into the glass and give Mrs.KENT a spoonful of the mixture.  Mrs.KENT was then asked to take a small spoonful every two hours until - “the homœopath had the effrontery to say” - she went to sleep. Since for several weeks his wife had barely closed her eyes, KENT felt that the homœopath was either an impostor or a quack and he brusquely showed him out.


  KENT then went to his study, which adjoined the sickroom, to continue work on a lecture he was preparing.  Two hours later, not wanting to distress his wife, he administered a spoonful of the medicine but without the least conviction as to its efficacy.  He returned to his study and then became so engrossed in his work and he forgot to return to his wife two hours later to give her the third dose of the medicine.


  It was some four hours later that he suddenly remembered his oversight.  Going to his wife’s room he found her in a deep and sound sleep, something long unknown to her despite her frequent and conscientious taking of drugs.  Thereafter the old homœopath paid daily calls and gradually the condition of the patient improved until she was able to get up.  Within a few weeks she had recovered her health completely.


  This humble homœopathic physician had been able to achieve that which none of the eminent physicians or professors of the allopathic and eclectic schools whom KENT had consulted had been able to do.  Dr.PHELAN had restored the health of Mrs. KENT gently, rapidly and permanently.


  KENT was deeply impressed by what he had witnessed and his naturally frank and straight-forward character compelled him to apologize to his colleague; he had to confess that the scepticism he had felt at the time of the first visit had been dispelled by the improvement in his wife’s condition.  After her cure his views on the practice of medicine underwent a complete change.  He felt sure that the improvement which he had observed taking place in his wife from day to day could not be the result of chance or coincidence and he obliged to ask himself whether perhaps there was not some real merit in Homœopathy.  The cure of his wife moved him so deeply that he determined to make a thorough investigation into this type of therapy.


  KENT’s intense desire to alleviate suffering led him to concentrate all the power of his vast intellect and his indomitable will to the arduous task of acquiring a deep knowledge of Homœopathy and to this end gave himself unstintingly.  Under the guidance of Dr. PHELAN he studied HAHNEMANN’s  Organon - the basic treatise of Homœopathy - and worked night and day perusing everything he could lay hands on which dealt with this paradoxical method.  It is also said that for weeks at a time he would sit up for the greater part of the night, enveloped in an overcoat against the cold, to devour all available literature published in America on the subject of Homœopathy.


  In whatever he undertook he mastered each step from the beginning to the end and this proved to be the case with Homœopathy also.  He was so overwhelmed by what he discovered that he decided to resign his chair of Anatomy and to give up his membership of the Eclectic National Medical Association. This was the turning point in his medical career and from this time dates his whole-hearted conversion to Homœopathy.


  Deep sincerity and an impartiality born of absolute integrity were very marked in KENT and he devoted himself body and soul, to this new doctrine, the deep value and truth of which he was able to perceive.  In particular he realized, when comparing this with the other methods he had learned, that it was the only one to offer a Law and principles to follow as a guide in therapeutics.  All other systems appeared to him to be aleatory and inconstant.  While the allopathic and eclectic  schools deal with consequences, KENT recognized the primary concern of Homœopathy to be, as far as possible, that of fundamental causes.  He had also observed that to take action based on consequences, even though these might be highly placed on the ladder of effects, could not bring about effective amelioration, much less a cure.  He had observed that every form of therapy operating on results would bring failure and for this reason he had become dissatisfied with his practice.


  Now, suddenly, the case of his wife came to point out a new direction.  It was during this period that he had occasion to observe the real difference between all other therapeutic methods and  that  of Homœopathy when practiced according to the precise  instructions of the founder.  His study of Homœopathy brought him such certainty and conviction that he knew no peace until he was able himself to apply this doctrine with all conscientiousness and strictness it demanded. So he then devoted again his full time to his patients, enlightened by all he had learnt thanks to Dr.PHELAN, and in a very short time his homœopathic practice flourished.


  Through exceedingly hardwork he confirmed the absolute veracity of the Law of Similars and established the need for individualization.  He confirmed also the unbelievable efficacy of minute doses thanks to the process of dynamization discovered by the founder, Samuel HAHNEMANN.


  In 1882 KENT was appointed to the Chair of Surgery at the Missouri Homœopathic Medical College, St Louis, until the retirement in 1883 of Dr.UHLEMEYER, the Professor of Materia Medica.  At that time Dr. UHLEMEYER had urged that KENT take charge of his department since his special suitability for it was generally recognized.  KENT  accepted the post which he held until 1888; he left it to conduct the work of Philadelphia Postgraduate School of Homœopathics to which he devoted himself until the year 1899.  This College had then the reputation of being the best homœopathic school in the world.  In addition to being the Dean of that institution he also taught Homœopathic Philosophy, Repertorization and Materia Medica and he conducted an out-patient clinic.  As an illustration of the activity of this clinic it may be mentioned that during the years 1896 and 1897 a total of over 34,800 consultations took place here.


  While Dean of the Philadelphia Postgraduate School of Homœopathy, KENT lost his wife.  In the months of sorrow which followed he plunged ever more ardently into this pioneering work about Homœopathy, performing experiments on himself and striving without respite to perfect the science and the art of this form of therapy.  It was during this time that he studied and rallied to the philosophy of SWEDENBORG which provided him with a transcendental vision of the problem of sickness and healing.  But his feet remained firmly planted on the ground and he was able to create a method which could be taught and applied for the study of symptoms and the search for the similimum.


  In 1896, some years after the death of his wife, KENT was called upon to attend a patient whom he was to treat a long time and finally marry.  His second wife, CLARA LOUISE TOBEY of Philadelphia, had completed her study of Medicine, first of Allopathy and then of Homœopathy, and had become a homœopathic practitioner.  This patient had consulted the most eminent allopathic and homœopathic physicians in the U.S.A., without benefit.  All of the great homœopathic physicians had prescribed Lachesis, since she had the symptoms of this remedy.  KENT studied her case with the utmost care and after prolonged reflection came to the conclusion that for some years she had been engaged in a real proving of Lachesis which had given her in homœopathic terms, “its medicamental miasma”.  If a substance whose symptoms one experiences, is taken repeatedly, it may give rise to a medicamental malady which may sometimes become very serious and even incurable.  KENT predicted - also with complete accuracy - that the patient would exhibit lifelong symptoms of Lachesis.  He declared she must never again touch this remedy and must henceforth take antidotes against its toxic effects.


  KENT found this able and intelligent woman an inspiring helpmate and it was with her help that he was able to give the world his masterly work: The Philosophy, The Materia Medicaand The Repertory, about which we shall speak later.  The presence and sustained help of this co-worker were infinitely precious to the Master but she was unable to reduce his overwork and to restrain his indefatigable zeal in the great cause that he had undertaken, by obliging him to  rest.

  His renown was such that he was in demand everywhere.  In 1900, on his appointment as the Dean of Dunham Homœopathic Medical College in Chicago, he became at the same time Professor of Homœopathic Philosophy, Repertory and  Materia Medica.  At a later period he taught Materia Medica with presentation and discussion of clinical cases to the students of all the classes, from the first year to the final year, at the Hahnemann Homœopathic Medical College, Chicago, and was appointed Dean of that college in 1905.  Here he wrote to a physician on one occasion: “I am glad you are helped by my works.  It is a dull time for pure Homœopathy and most of the colleges sneer at it.  I am glad I have a free chance at teaching.  They are all very nice to me in our Hahnemann College of Chicago.  I lecture twice each week to all the four classes in the amphitheatre.  This gives the freshers a chance to hear my entire course as it takes four years to cover the Materia Medica.  Ours is the only college in which a student is taught pure Homœopathy.  It is true that much that is not true is taught by some of our teachers but I try to keep our students from absorbing the mongrelism.”


  Nevertheless the bitter competition at Chicago between the Hering and Dunham Medical College was a painful subject among the homœopaths and all others who were supporting those institutions.  The purpose and principles of those schools were in fact the same but having two establishments with twice the personnel did nothing but double the expenses and at the same time diminish the financial support and the teaching possibilities.  Negotiations were initiated between those two rival schools in 1903 and ended in a favourable agreement which permitted the incorporation of the Dunham Medical College with the Hering College which was then called the HERING Medical college, of which KENT  had the honour to become the President.


  I must stress that the Hering College proved ultimately to be by far the best college of its kind ever established and only the purest form of Homœopathy was taught there.  The student received homœopathic instruction through all the years of his study, i.e. from the day of joining until his graduation with an M.D. degree.  The student was required to study in this college for the same number of years as the allopathic student in the allopathic college.  Homœopathic Philosophy, Repertorization, Chronic Miasmata of HAHNEMANN and Homœopathic Materia Medica formed the basis of the teaching in addition to the following subjects: anatomy, physiology, histology, pathology, chemistry, toxicology, pharmacy, hygiene, dietetics, medical jurisprudence, practice of medicine, diagnosis—clinical and physical, neurology, pediatrics, dermatology, diseases of the chest, genito-urinary diseases, gynaecology, obstetrics, ophthalmology, oto-rhino-laryngology, and surgery.

  Three outstanding professors at the Hering Homœopathic Medical College were KENT, H.C. ALLEN and J.H.ALLEN.  The latter was Professor of “Chronic Miasmata of HAHNEMANN”  and is the author of that most valuable work Psora, Pseudo-psora and Sycosis.  The physicians who studied at this college have done much to spread the teaching of Hahnemannian Homœopathy.  One student of KENT,  Sir John WEIR, lectures at Royal London Homœopathic Hospital in London.  Another, Professor Dr. B.K. BOSE, a student of Hering Homœopathic Medical College, still teaches in the oldest homœopathic medical college now in existence - the Calcutta Homœopathic Medical College Hospital in India.


  It was at this period of his life that KENT was giving the best of his knowledge in his lectures.  In addition to his teaching, which took a great part of his time, he directed a polyclinic which was always very crowded, where he taught homœopathic physicians, already well advanced in their knowledge, to detect and make a correct choice of essential symptoms in a few minutes. Because of KENT’s far-reaching understanding of the characteristics he was able to find the remedy at once.  KENT’s lectures were thronged and those in his audience who could not answer or who answered badly were not asked to do so a second time - indeed a redoubtable test for all those aspiring to become good homœopathic physicians.


  At his lectures on homœopathic philosophy KENT would lay HAHNEMANN’s Organon  on the lectern and thrusting his hands under his coat tail he would expound all that his keen intellect and perspicacity had extracted when meditating upon the various sections of its 294 paragraphs.  On the first section alone, the shortest of all, KENT performed over an hour’s exegesis!


  HAHNEMANN had bequeathed an Organon expressed in a condensed and rather difficult form, but KENT  was able to interpret its contents and in his philosophy to present them to his students (and to the physicians of our era) in a form easy to understand.  On one occasion a very scholarly and deep thinking acquaintance had remarked to KENT:  “I have read your Philosophy five times and am still reading it, and I am just now beginning to understand HAHNEMANN’s Organon

  KENT had followed in the footsteps of HAHNEMANN, but he had done more, he had outstripped him; he had discovered the doctrine of the Language of Reaction, had shown the direction of the course of treatment immediately following the first dose and how the multiple reactions following the first dose and how the multiple reactions following this step should be interpreted and the patient led scientifically towards complete recovery.


  KENT’s exposition on “Simple Substance” is marvellous.  This “Substance” is that which is real, to distinguish it from that which is apparent.  It is really the basis of all external manifestations - the permanent object of the cause of phenomena, either material or spiritual.  It is not only the essence of something living, extant, but it is the essence plus the existence.  It is the essential of everything - the most important element of all existence.  Although immaterial we must not consider it as non-spatial but really as an “energetic spatial”.


  During his lifetime HAHNEMANN’s ideas in connection with the repetition of the dose underwent several changes; then, at the close of his life, he experimented with a new method which is described in the sixth edition of the Organon.  This method is in fact very complicated and is not suited for practical use today, moreover, it is not able to deal with full satisfaction with the drug miasma which HAHNEMANN had declared, in section 76 of the sixth edition of the Organon, he could not tackle. “A human healing art, for the restoration to the normal state of those innumerable abnormal conditions so often produced by the allopathic non-healing art, there is not and cannot be”.  Nor can it combat the extremely complicated and involved chronic miasmatic diseases of our era which have developed with the senseless and extravagant drugging applied by modern medicine with all its chemical sulphonamides and antibiotics.


  Dr. Fredericka E.GLADWIN had the following comment to make in connection with this method of HAHNEMANN: “We must remember that HAHNEMANN  was still in the experimental stage of Homœopathy.  He made tremendous progress from where he began in 1796 to where he left off in 1843, but since HAHNEMANN has left us, there have been so many good homœopaths experimenting that we should profit by their experience.  I think that if HAHNEMANN could have lived until now, with the same experience that all these homœopaths who have gone between have had, and applied his remedies in very high potency, that he too would hold the application of one single potency until it gave out and then go higher, just as KENT and his followers have done with so much success”.


  KENT was the discoverer of the doctrine “Series in Degrees” which he foretold would become one of the most important subjects in the treatment of chronic disease, and would lead to the development of a distinct class of prescribers in the school of Homœopathy.  To maintain the continuous curative action of the indicated remedy the doctrine of “Series in Degrees” must be understood and used.  It is important to note that HAHNEMANN had no practical knowledge and experience of the action of those potencies which KENT used in accordance with his discovery.  Fortunately both of the foregoing problems, namely the tackling of the drug miasma and overcoming of the extremely complicated and involved chronic diseases of our era, are being, in certain fortunate cases, solved by physicians who faithfully follow KENT’s method.


  In the January 1886 edition of The Homœopathic Physician published by LEE, KENT called attention to the fact that HAHNEMANN’s followers had been making progress since the death of the founder, citing the fact that although in Section 41 and 76 of the Organon HAHNEMANN had declared: “that certain diseases could not be eradicated as they had been complicated with drugs, whose indications were only arbitrary and hypothetic”, such diseases could in fact be wiped out and the drug symptoms subdued by very high attenuations.  It must be pointed out that HAHNEMANN did not make any change in those two sections as regards the curability of drug miasma when he prepared the sixth edition of the Organon just before his death; it means that even after experimenting with “his last and most perfect method” he could not deal with this problem.


  KENT’s discovery has been verified consistently and his method found to be both efficacious and practicable.  Like all of his good disciples I follow his procedure and have been doing so for some forty-seven years.  It is also used by a number of our foremost physicians who are playing leading roles in the practice of the science and the art of Homœopathy and they, like myself, are carrying it out with the greatest satisfaction and praise it unreservedly.  In the words of Dr.GLADWIN: “Thanks to his untiring efforts and remarkable abilities, this past-master of the Art and Science of homœopathic medicine has left us immortal works.  More than that, he has shown us the example of infinite patience and unfailing kindness: he has guided our healing steps along the paths of homœopathic truth, sparing neither time nor trouble to explain to us every stage of the journey ahead, constantly admonishing us and leading us back to the right road when, through ignorance, clumsiness or negligence we have strayed from the way of truth.”


  KENT was not pleased to learn that his students wanted to publish the stenographic notes which had been made of his lectures as he considered them insufficiently complete for the purpose he had in mind, but thanks to their insistence this work was revised by him and appeared in print, in 1900, under the title Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy.


  This work exposes in a masterly form the theory and practice of the Hahnemannian doctrine.  There have been several reprints of the Philosophy since 1900, including a memorial edition published in 1919.  In the year 1958 I made a French translation of it, with many commentaries, and this edition was sold out within a month of publication; I am now preparing a second edition with an extensive and detailed index.


  With reference to  KENT’s Philosophy,  Dr.A.GRIMMER, a student of KENT, says “that a full knowledge of it clarifies many of the obscure points in the Organon and enables the physician to have a deep perception of homœopathic truths; to use KENT’sRepertory expertly it is necessary to have a complete knowledge of the contents of this book.  This work has no equal in showing how to study the Materia Medica, grasp it fully and apply it successfully.  For the homœopath it is indispensable for it is the key which unlocks the storehouse of knowledge of homœopathic healing.  We must bear in mind that a single reading of the philosophy will not suffice.  It requires many careful perusals and much study to obtain a deep understanding of the truth of Homœopathy which it contains.”


  In the course of his lectures on Materia Medica KENT opened as a reference one of the ten volumes of HERING’s Guiding Symptoms and from this dry and analytical survey he created a lively synthesis and gave each remedy a distinct personality.  He knew how to make the various elements of the picture, each with its lights and shades, stand out in all their originality.

  I must mention that HAHNEMANN himself had written that there were many obscure and unreliable symptoms in our symptomatology.  T. F.ALLEN (the author of the famous Encyclopaedia) had also stressed the need of sifting our symptomatology because he said that the mistakes therein have been perpetuated from year to year.  HERING had started collecting the reliable symptoms and KENT continued this work in the course of which he discovered that certain mistakes had been made by HERING.  In addition to raising the grades of certain remedies in the Guiding Symptoms KENT has verified certain symptoms and has added a number of new ones; the very corrected copy of this book wherein KENT recorded his notes is now in my possession.


  I would like to mention here some remarks made by KENT regarding BOENNINGHAUSEN’s famous Repertory.  They were made in July 1912 issue of the  Homœopathician.  “There are books in existence that seem to foster the idea of pure Homœopathy which have done much harm along with much good.  BOENNINGHAUSEN’s Therapeutic Pocket Book has rendered all our old men a grand service, yet is most defective and has caused many good men to shun repertories”.

  As he was unable to obtain a dictionary of symptoms sufficiently reliable for reference as to the remedies corresponding to a given symptom, he himself set about compiling a repertory of symptoms.  In the course of this gigantic work he imposed a great strain on his health but the result was the best repertory ever made.  At the outset he used as a guide the small work of C. LIPPE, entitledRepertory of the More Characteristic Symptoms of our Materia Medica(published in New York in 1879) which was repertory of some 318 pages, the ones of JAHR, BOENNINGHAUSEN, GENTRY, BIEGLER’s  diary and some pages of MINTON’s Diseases of Women.  KENT’s work was based on the principles of the Organon and when completed, it consisted of no less than 1,349 pages.


  When the Repertory was at last ready some two hundred physicians placed an order for it, the price being $30 per copy.  The cost for the mere setting of the print of this first edition amounted to $9,000 and KENT was  somewhat discouraged to find that over half of those who had placed orders for it withdrew them at the last minute.  Nevertheless, out of gratitude for what Homœopathy had given to him and in the hope that it would be of use to the homœopathic profession, he decided to pay the required balance of $6,000 from his own pocket.


  It was in 1897, after very many difficulties and at the cost of a great deal of eye-strain for both KENT and his wife, that theRepertory was at last born.  KENT still continued to collect notes and compile data, however, and in 1908 the second edition of theRepertory was published.  But KENT was still not satisfied.  With some four hundred copies of the second edition still unsold, he started preparing the third edition and to this work he devoted the latter part of his life, unable, alas, to publish it while living.  In 1914, two years before his death, he expressed concern about the completion of this third edition and remarked that neither he nor his wife would physically be able to read the proofs and he did not know who could.  He had at that time become very frail but in spite of his failing health he was determined to continue.  He would write for a short time and then rest, write again, then again take rest, until at last the work was finished.  When he died in 1916 he left behind the completed third edition in manuscript form.


  I would like to mention two pieces of advice which KENT would always give to his pupils, as they were transmitted to me by his most intimate disciples, Dr. AUSTIN and Dr. GLADWIN.  They are:


  1.  “If you have prescribed a first remedy conscientiously and according to the homœopathic doctrine, especially in an acute condition but also in chronic cases, and you get no result or unsatisfactory results, and if you go on to give a second and then a third, still with no effect, then I beg you, stop, go no further.  It is time to give placebo, which you might as well have done in the first place, and probably you would have gained considerable advantage by so doing.  But it would certainly have been harder to apply this rule than, without sufficient accuracy but just in order to do something, to give one or two remedies of which you were uncertain or which did not correspond to the essential symptoms of the case, either because you mistook the remedy or because you had not detected the symptoms of highest value.  Never, therefore, prescribe anything without having reconsidered the case.  Like the stalker, waiting until the game is in his sights, wait patiently for the symptoms to develop before firing the bullet that will bring it down.  Learn to watch and wait, and never lose your head”.


  2.  “Whenever you examine a case with a view to determine the constitutional remedy, do not confine yourself to the similimum alone, i.e. the remedy which bears especially the maximum qualitative similarity to the symptoms”.


  This calls to mind the saga of the Swiss hero, Wilhelm TELL.  When TELL was ordered by the landgrave to shoot an arrow at an apple placed on the head of his son, TELL laid an arrow to his cross-bow.  He then took a second one from his quiver and hid it under his jerkin, so that, should his first arrow hit his son and not the apple, he might slay the man who had given the order with the reserve arrow.  In the same way you should always have in reserve at least one alternative remedy - a similie, or what we today would call a satellite - as like as possible to the first, so that you will never be defenceless or at a loss for your second prescription.


  Overworked with his teaching, his enormous practice requiring him to call on and receive many patients, his activities as a writer, an extensive correspondence as well as telegrams both by night and by day, asking without pause for his valued advice, he decided, at the insistence of his pupils, to have a rest and to take advantage of this respite at last to write a real book on Homœopathy, as his two works, the Philosophy and Materia Medica were regarded by him only as works of reference.  Leaving his practice and his teaching he went, now without difficulty, to his home in the country at Sunnyside Orchard in the Stevensville in the State of Montana.  But alas, on his arrival the bronchial catarrh from which he had been suffering for some months was complicated by Bright’s disease and after two weeks he succumbed, on June 6th 1916.  This was also due to the overwork which had completely worn him out over the years.


  It was a terrible shock for the profession, for his friends, his innumerable patients and especially his many pupils to whom he had given so abundantly without concern for himself.