Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1820-08-08

POolllOn WHlCn iii1Sut pdoo viii tlIOSC
who know or care little about the SUBJ
iect, but which, to medical man, or
even school-boy in chemistry, is nearly
ridiculous.
The Querist, probably influenced by a
desire to see whether as much ingenuity
could be displayed in the defence, as
there was apparent ostentation exhibited
in the annunciation of this novelty, took
the liberty of asking the doctor for his
reasons.
Several weeks elapsed, but no answer
appeared. | then sent some negative
proofs of the position, drawn from the
common elements of chemistry.
DIR. Reynolds nert came forward with
an an8q0er TO the Querist, substantially
the following: First, re-assert that
mine is the general opinion, viz.-that
nitrogen is marsh-miasma, your 'opi-
MON to the contrary Notwithstanding
But, secondly, if simply telling you that
you know nothing about public opinion
Is not sufficient reason or argument in
support of my doctrine, then, my super
! ficial fellow, look at the deyastations of
plaques; search into the works of all
those authors, (even up to Hippocrates,
as | have done, 7gho AUed and gvrote
long before any body eUer heard Of nj
trogen and if they don't convince you
that nitrogen and marsh -miasma are the
same, then remain unconverted. Be-
sides, it is very improper to ask for ex-
plantations of my 8ingaiaritieS while you
are concealed under fictitious signature;
and now il you wish to hear any more
from me, come out in propria persona"
The Querist again advanced, with a
simple appeal to the public, whether he
had acted in any degree improperly by
requesting Of Dr. r. &C.; and as he
could detect nothing to the point in the
doctors nominal answer, referred that
gentleman to the negative proofs above
mentioned. After a long interval, the
gentlemanly Philo-Rcporter made his
appearance, and affecting to consider
mere assertion, a theory, and a query,
with some elementary negations of that
assertion, as criticisms, espouses the
cause oftbe injured Theorist with all the
decent Qaixotic rage imaginable
Whether any really justiiable cause
of offence has been given, the public
must Judge. But what IS Philo's argu-
mentative objection? not that Querist
has swcrved from the strict line of pro-
priety; not that Esculapius has adj
vanced any untrue or unfair negative ar
guments; but that the circumstances
remind him how unpleasantly he was 81.
tuated when confronted by the preservers
Of his youthful honesty, and, by associa-
ton, awaken equal indignation against
every person repulsive to his itching de-
sire for present scribbling reputation.
Having thus briefly dismissed his CO.
gent general argument, let us now ex-
anime bis Observation-Disclosures. Indeed
it is principally Oh account of the illibe-
rality in them displayed, that l have in
any degree noticed this ingenious spe-
cimen Of anylogical reasoning.
First insinuation, That DIR. r. is an
object Of ire TO Querist and Esculapius.
Second, That we are nevertheless SO
afraid Of that object of our hatred, as to
vociferate more violently when he re-
treats out ofthe state. Third, Gas a con-
iirmation,) That we knew he had left the
state previous to Our writing. Fourth,
That Esculapias and Querist are the
same person.
General reply. All the above insinu-
ations are as false as they are mean.-
Shew one instance of personal hostility
give ono example Of fear. For what
could we hate him? For what ahouid we
we fear him l know him not. ! never
even heard Of his name until / saw it af-
fixed to a medical report. Gould his
movements then be well known to me2
Or is the doctor SO important person.
age that the public is presumed to be
well acquainted with all bis motions =?
But admitting this, were not my negative
proofs inserted prior to his answer to
the Querist? Fad he departed then ?
Respecting the identity of Querist and
Esculapius, ! add, that they are probably
much less acquainted, and reside more
widely apart, than DR.. R. and Philo-Re-
porter.
But for qoiat hurhoae is all this liz.
berality promised +? To introduce the
boast, that the doctor had been at home,
it is more tAan PROBABLE, that Escula-
plus would have been saved the trouble
of commencing himself in the character
of the Querist; or, in other words, that
the doctor would have SO controverted
Esculapius as to silence Querist altoge-
Their also. And think you, Philo, that