Lincoln telegraph. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1836-1846, 1841-10-14

result from its erciting the sys stem to an 'ncreaS
ed action, by which the circulation ofthe blood is
accelerated perspration is promoted; evapora-
ton of sweat ensues the external surface OF the
body lowered in its temperature, IN the same
manner would be produced by the exciting
properties ofhot tea and that, as consequence
of such excitaton, corresponding depression would
nevitably ensue? Contrast The words of " Botani-
CO Medcus," that &" Nitre is considered refriger-
ant" with his " honest OMISSION of the word
4" diaphoretic," as found in the language employ
ed by {" Scepticism" and Wood and Bache Does
it not show a lame evasion rather than manly ar
gument? Is not the accusation then well found
ed is it not true, that under the Pretence OF an
original quotation he has "mangled" the Ian
guage ofan author quoted Has he not uiolated
the language of I" Scepticsm,' and outraged
mine? Can he deny the facts in evidence Will
he show /" something besides mere assertion IN
its support
Is not Lobelia a poison" If "the public
want more light" is not here chance to proUe,
that it wiH kill not only "well beasts, but hu-
man beings Shall throw not only Thomson,
but all his followers on their backs, by proving
that Lobelia IS a "poison?" Is not " Thomson,
the medical parent of" ,ce Thomsonians,' well
known IN Beverly, Mass Samuel Thomson p
If there is doubt as to the man, what says
Beck's Medical Jurisprudence, Vol 2, pages $50
-53l
ga melancholy instance of death occasloned
by the use of this plant, in the hands of quack,
is detailed in the sixth volume of the Massachu-
sets Reports, (Tyng's Massachusetts, Reports,
vol 6,page 1874 Commonwealth v Thompson, Din
the trial of Sam'l Thompson, an empire practs-
ing in Beverly, for the murder of Ezra Lovett, In
this trial, it appeared that the patient, being con-
fined by cold, sent for the pretended physician,
who gave him three powders of Lobela in the
course of half an honr, each of which vomited
him violently, and left him in a great perspira-
ton during the night. The next day two or
more powders were administered, each of which
operated by vomiting, and occasioned great dis
tress. In like manner, two other powders were
given the subsequent day, leaving the patient in
a state of great prostration. Several days after
|
patient still worse, several more powders, were
given which accustomed great distress, and at
length ceased to operate Finding that the stomach
was not sensible to the emetlc effect the Lobella,
the physician repeated the dose, and when the pa
tent complained of great distress at the breast, and
said he was dying, the doctor assured him the med-
cine would soon get down, or operate as cathar-
tic However, on the same evening, the patient
lost his reason, and became convnlsed, so that
that two men were required TO hold him To re-
lieve which, the doctor forced down two more of
his powders, and the patient, as was to be expect
eG, grew worse, and continued until he ex-
PRED"
"The doctor, who had thus terminated the dis
ease and the patient at once was arrested and
put upon trial for murder; but the homicide prov
ing legitimate one, from the want Of sufficient
evidence of malice prepense, (meaning, that
there not being sufficient evidence of INTENTION
AL murder, DELIBERATELY contriued BEFORE
HANOI he was acquitted and set al liberty
Horses and cattle have also been killed from
eating this plant
Is not the "proof' above, rational "defni-
ton" of the word "poison :" Comments are un-
necessary.
Z" come once more to the case" upon which
Botanico Medicus is accused of not fL3s'' kno,o-
ing disease /" Was not this charge based by
Scepticism upon the .tact, that " Botanico Medi-
Gus" had mol fully and properly" descriJcd, a
case of : Scarlet Ferer II Was not CDR.
Scepticism we'll kaown TO " Botanico Medi-
Gus ;" Was the latter "well known" to the for
mer' If So was there not public, as well as an
dicidual testimony to the mind OFF, Scepticism,
that his " known' opponent did not know the
disease, he had endeavored to C describe" Has
/" Botanco Medicus' ever asserted or maintain
ed in ann of his articles, that the described
aoaS Scarlet Fever Unless a man reallg knows
disease, how can he describe it 2 Is not this the
very uncertainty in which " Botanico Medicus'
was placed And is it singular, that he has nee
er DARED to assert, that the case so I" fully and
properly" described, aCaS Scarlet Fever or Mea-
sizes, or the early symptoms of aRy inAammatory
disease, complicated with congestion of the brain
and looseness of the bowels? Then why ask
others to describe to Themselves, disease, which
he nov calls Scarlet Fever, and which he did not
know, nor DARE to name as such, when endeav
oring to describe a case to " Scepticism?" Does
the mere pretence of discussing the treatment,
hide the misfortune of ones not KNOWING disease !?
Would not the veriest tyro in medicine "laugh