# American Medical Biographies/Guthrie, Samuel

​Guthrie, Samuel (1782–1848)
Samuel Guthrie, the discoverer of chloroform, was the son of Dr. Samuel Guthrie, of Brimfield, Massachusetts, whose home is still standing very much as he left it. In this house, in the year 1782, the younger Samuel was born, and here he doubtless received his first inclination to medicine and love of science. ​Of his early life we know nothing, except that he studied medicine with his father, but began to practise for himself in Sherburne, New York, where his grandfather, James G. Guthrie, resided. Shortly after (1804) he married Sybil Sexton, of Smyrna, New York, and later, his diary—still preserved—shows that he attended medical lectures at King's College, New York (1810–11), and at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1815).
When thirty-five (1817) he removed to Sacketts Harbor, New York, at that time a military post, established in 1812. Here Dr. Guthrie established a vinegar and alcohol factory and began experimenting in the manufacture of priming powder in which he was very successful. "S. Guthrie's Waterproof Percussion Priming" was for many years widely known and extensively used throughout the United States and Canada.
There are in the museum of Yale College specimens of chlorate of potassium, glucose syrup and pure oil of turpentine manufactured by him in the little laboratory at the edge of the woods in Jewettville, a little hamlet about a mile from the town of Sacketts Harbor. Here it was that he first thought out or stumbled upon the method of manufacture of chloroform, now generally adopted the world round, viz.: the distillation of alcohol with chloride of lime. This fact he communicated to Professor Silliman, editor of The American Journal of Arts and Science, under the caption of "New Mode of Preparing a Spirituous Solution of Chloric Ether, by Samuel Guthrie, of Sacketts Harbor, New York." (Art. VI, vol. xxi, October, 1831.)
As early as May, 1831, and probably earlier, his attention was turned to the "medicinal value of chloric ether," as set forth in Silliman's Chemistry. Chloric ether of to-day is generally understood to mean an alcoholic solution of chloroform (1:19), and this is exactly what Dr. Guthrie unintentionally produced, although he was endeavoring to "find a more convenient method of making" a very different substance, the chloric ether of Silliman's Chemistry, viz.: Dutch Liquid." This is proved by the note sent by Dr. Guthrie with his specimen of "chloric ether" which reads as follows: "My attention was called to the subject by the suggestion in volume ii, page 20, of "Yale College Elements of Chemistry," that the alcoholic solution of chloric ether is a grateful diffusive stimulant, and that, as it admits of any degree of dilution, it probably may be introduced into medicine."
It is evident from this quotation that Dr. Guthrie had no idea that he had discovered a new compound. His statement is that he had invented a new method of preparing the "chloric ether" described on page 20 of Silliman's Chemistry. There can be no doubt that this was Prof. Silliman's idea, as proved by his notes on the subject, which may be found on page 405, second volume, of volume xxi, American Journal of Arts and Science, wherein Prof. Silliman expressly says: "Mr. Guthrie's method of preparing it is ingenious, economical and original, and the etherized spirit which he has forwarded as a sample is exactly analogous in sensible properties to the solution made in the manner described in the above work."
The exact date upon which this article was sent to Prof. Silliman unfortunately cannot be definitely determined. The magazine in which it was published bears date of October, 1831, and the notice to contributors desires that "communications be in hand six weeks, or when long, or with drawings, two months before the publication day." If this rule was observed in the case of Dr. Guthrie, his paper must have reached Prof. Silliman at least as early as August, 1831, and the discovery was several months previous as Guthrie states, in his communication, that "during the last six months a great number of persons have drunk of the solution of chloric ether in my laboratory, not only freely, but frequently, to the point of intoxication."
This effectively and conclusively disposes of the claims of Liebig and Soubeiran to priority of discovery of chloroform, since Liebig's discovery, viz.: the production of chloroform by the action of potassium hydroxide on chloral, was first published in November, 1831, a month later than the date of Guthrie's paper (Liebig's Annalen, vol. clxii, p. 161).
Soubeiran, whose method was identical with that of Guthrie and apparently closely contemporaneous, claims to have published his paper on "Ether Bichlorique" in October, 1831. Fortunately for Dr. Guthrie, the desire of Liebig to establish his own claim led to his careful investigation of the date of publication of the October number of the Annals de Chemie et de Physique for 1831. That it could not have been printed in October, 1831, is definitely proved by the fact that the meteorological report for the entire month of October is printed in the October number, which Liebig discovered did not appear until January, 1832.
Dr. Guthrie was a rather quiet man, making frequent use of the words yes and no. Though taciturn with strangers he was free with his ​friends. That he was liberal, at least with his family, his letters show. In most of them he mentions enclosing ten, twenty or more dollars. He had a large library for those days, though books on chemistry and encyclopedias were said to predominate. Still, works of fiction were present. He considered that the library was for the use of the family, and there were no restrictions, even on the children, as to what they should read. His granddaughter says that the only rule she remembers the Doctor was particular about was that no one should turn down the leaves of the books.
The Doctor gradually gave up the practice of medicine, and during the latter years of his life practised very little, though he would take a case now and then.
In his later years he had to face adversity. Sacketts depended for its prosperity upon its importance as a lake port as well as its proximity to the garrison. The railroad was now pushing its way into the north country, and commerce turned from the lake route to the new channel. This of course affected Sacketts adversely, and undoubtedly contributed to the decline of the fortunes of the Doctor and his sons. The son who died in Mexico left his affairs in bad shape, and the other one failed for $50,000, a large sum for those days. The Doctor evidently faced the situation philosophically, for in his letters there is no complaining. Instead he took a hopeful view of life, and made plans for his future activities.
It was in this frame of mind that he died, October 19, 1848.