Lincoln telegraph. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1836-1846, 1841-10-21

why ailege that thomson poisoned LoVeH SIN
ply because he took Lobelia and died
Allowing that Thomson had been convicted of
Murder, and that he had subsequently been pub
licly executed, would it all have proved Lobelia
to be poison2 If would, then why is not the
fact that our Saviour was tried and crucihed for
Treason, proof positive that he was Traitor p
"O!' says the reader, and perhaps "A LOCKER
on" would say the same, " there was an unholy
conspiracy formed against the Saviour, and NAL
ice and prejudice were brought TO bear upon him
by those whose craft was endangered by his doc
trines !" True and was there no conspiracy
formed against the medical Reformer? Was
there no malice or prejudice in the case? And
were there none who stirred up the authorities
against him. because their "Craft" was likely to
be disturbed by the expansive powers of"steam,'
and whose quackery was likely to be elected
from community through the emetlc powers of
Lobelia. If it was not for occupying too much
space in your paper, Mr.. Editor, and laying too
great tax upon your liberalty, l should like
to tell tale here that would make some folks
blush.
Now who resist the conclusion, from the
above proofs, ~ that Lobelia is tremendous poi
SOM But "a LOCKER on has furnished equal
ly strong proof that it "wiH kill osH beasts
Read the following and then draw long breath
if you can :-iC-Je" HoRsEs AND CATTLE HAVE
BEEN KILLED FROM EATING THIS PLANT IN GA
LOCKER on has marked this astounding informa-
ton as quotation but does he really suppose
that this will go current for PROOF He has not
even told us who said so but, fortunately, can
tell ifhe cannot. Drs Thatcher and Coke both
make this declaration I" Medical men are
becoming ashamed of this stereotyped falsehood,
and in the last edition the U. S. Dispensatory,
it has been prudently omitted
Now propose to give extract two, to
show that Lobela is mol poison. DR.. Tully of
Yale College says-t have been in the habit of
employing Lobelia Infata for 81 years, and of
witnessing its employment by others for the same
length of time, and in large quantities. | am
confident Ohe old women's stories to the con-
lrary Notwithstanding that Lobelia Inhata is
valuable, safe, and sufficiently gentle article of
Medicine
DR.. Warehouse, for long time eminent as a
medical Professor in Harvard University, OBJ
serves, 81 have had ample proofofthe efficacy and
safetu of Lobela in number of cases, and have
reason to value il as equal to any q lie in our
materia medica. | not only give it to my pa
tents, but take it myself whenever l have any
occasion for emetic."
DR.. Thomas Hersey of Ohio, Surgeon in the
U. S. army during the last war; says-'The Lobe
liza Intlata has been denounced as deadly poison
The imposition intended to be practlsed by such
an assertion, is too notorious to merit serious
reply. have administered Lobelia successful
ly to the child of thirty minutes, and to the hoa-
ry adult of eighty years ofage, and never knew
any danger result from its USE
But enough of these authorities. 1t is too late
in the day TO frghten people by crying out, Lo-
bella Poison Hundreds are the patients that
are testing its healthfuI influences daily, even in
our own State and if any farther proof is re-
CURED of its anti-poisonous qualities, barely de-
clare my readiness to swallow taoenty times the
amount usually employed as an emetic dose, at
any time when, by SO doing, can satisfy even
small proportion ofthose who are now prejudced
against the article am ready to "show my
faith by my works" But leave Lobelia to no.
tice briefly, and then will close, the "coSe.
ga LOCKER on" uses the following language:
" Has " Botanico Medicus" ever asserted or
maintained in any of his articles, that the case
described mas Scarlet Fever?' He then an
swers his own question as follows lie has
neper DARED to assert, that the so 'fully and
properly described, was Scarlet Fever" Then
why ask others to describe to Themselves, dis
ease, which he now calls Scarlet Fever, and which
he did not know, nor DARE to name as such, when
endeavoring to describe case to Sceptcism -
Now upon this point " A LOCKER on" has chuck
led himself into fine state offeeling. He DASH
es off sentences in grand style--no mistake. 1t
seems almost pity to tell the poor fellow the
gross mistake under which he labors, for it will
surely break the spell, and spoil his fun: but in
asmnch as he is accustomed to /" looking" |
must request him to &C look" again TO my first
communication, in the Telegraph of Sept. 9th
In that article let him read as follows: GAS |
may be called upon to visit those afflicted with
the disease upon uhch so much has been said, (what
disease was this but Scarlet Fever y | am des-
rous ofobtaining all the light can upon the sub
iect (what subject but Scarlet Fever;) and 10
this end wish to describe " case to Mr. Scep-
ticism," &c Then follows the " case"
Now DIR. how do you feel Didn't | DARE TO