New-York tribune., 1871-12-30

Wn.. wa nett .rmned consng the sdm"ct snd ne s%
Wh.,on ,uIes mt % s.S"" IL, W, y.s.S h
tts and iound not than 10 Of tartar smre The .rner
SS no... s.,; :, s ..% GS, "s .sca ''' ''''' D
"" eosdus.d ~ M s" ',h r"
to show 4, the result spt%ony o,he
"sus he n anil oes, az. know. ,s.
xa.,, ,n%Sn; S, r': ct: ns .se, 'rs1 s s u
isPIs q: .' %:'' tn: ... .T t.'ss s
%'si % not sSs S .SS se
Z, n % ed % % I%o 4ty % S ss ss the
stomach made Jul, bis summary Of The eIsWn9n ws maa "a
S'Si n sss ss so" d s' and Of h
paA, and purity tn. Importance Of color In
Ts ansMrr alnded to bis statement Of sn,yn,
md results S On mad, s, IN ns r nsD to the sss s 1o Wharton
e.~ isse copy had furn bed counsel s
% ~ Count ~. .n. ns the Il. .' T::
hsnd~Gaa Of Pro Ahtn During the examination TO-DAY these
S. S,ss original s%T, %1.."n va @
% ssu not %eI e on auh. h ps % "Ss' h
s S: ' . scon u nS %
onelad ie hour Of adjournment, htonn u h p t ,s % an
ss'ta esr% every juror gave earnest attention
Ts il ,s S%y the trial q. na
@ .s TIE cca % a iss S.ns %' y by x S
and b. tho who wa. asked and
M & ,Ias .e u 'n lie ,S.
wch r. & s % $ %UHg , 10 m ss & @ %" from TIM the test "
Described in the witness thinks 1t is owing to ce"ca ef0
the handwriting Of Aiken The important tan v,ri
s,s s Ss a1 tn hat %%.' 'S %o a
former He he dissolved some Of the sems.' C & ts
r ae this was Dissolved an then, when this
~a1 ~n 'ISS% 1 aet S.'' hs de rmoS e
antinony boiling hydrOhlorc acid, AMI It's subsequent
The witness wa. further ry questioned to the quantity tartar
emrc obtained b. bis analysis and the means o'e' 10 'a
quantity.
Every consideration Of justice to Prof Aiken forbds
| fOraO troN
rejecting correctly anything this witness may have said
upon the methods OF his chemical examination OF the
suspected substance Of S results. All tins should
bc waived until authentic report OF hl' evidence Is
ri, IN the public But there points In his evidence
aside from this, which will be ra, it'll great surprise
aud regret by all toxcoogSts. All authorities agree
that In poisoning by tartarFmetc the quantity given
unst I've shown be large. nasinuch as il is REMEDY Of
fporcnt Use in medical practice and ts prcsec In the
stomach l. Of tscf evidence Of any criminal intent
Drs Wharton and Stillr say:
"The large do-cs tof tararcnctic) which have hrrn
Tolerated III some f,re affections, snch pneumonia
rhrunntisn, &c. have thrown doubt upon its lrr
tant proImrtcs and its speedy rejection from the
s iar@ ~ and con tiintionai poisonous
| zeal Jur1rudenor 1865. p. 455.) And again 1T Is
the stomach or absorbed in other organs. NAV
he due TO the proper medicinal % ,
o.roIs on which IT is prescribed. are humorous; an
i, not un'rcqucny adminstered In ra.es OF pos"nihf
caions IL NAV in ease Of death. place in the way Of
the chemist, rr. mns s , %; ygr or s
fully excluded the ohco OF the nodicoeKal inquiry
| may be- entirely frustrated" y. ttS
In case observed by Dr. j. T. Gleaves Of Tunep"e the
patient recovered after taking Tablespoonful of tartar
.,nctic Dr. RrIya rfersl where death ensued
I'm flour days after 40 grains had been swallowed In
short the whole literature Of tarareneic in Its tOAca
relations goes show that 1t is OF the utmost
allence decide III possible hor,nuch OF this salt Is
present and hence DR.. Akens volunteer remarks quoted
above IN his testimony not Ory legally out OF place.
and very properly silrnced by the Court hut they
;eyeny andain conflict with oil recognized
| authorities.
Dr. Aiken also testified. the crOTsexamnatioD. that
he has 10 tangible visible substance to show as the
result Of his cAamati ion analysis; no antimoy
other substance; they were not preserved; it was not
usual to preserve antmonia products" &c, &C. Tls.
a. well as what follows is most strange, and equard
ONLY by his failure preserve any continuous record Of
his expcrin results. Why should he not produce In
court the antional evidences Of his researchi IL not
the dche Of antmOny equally stable and fully as char
acerstic that OF arsenici Could he not have shown
both the jury and demonstrated the clear distinctions
which readily appreciated by anv Intelligent person
Why should not jury the crystals Of
taken from the Of the tumbler turn yellow under
the action Of suphydrc acid side by side with another
authentic sample OF the same salt Why pOr
ton Of the grains Of annOnc snlphde reduced. to
wns not the only Of demonstration pursued in
this case which Is satisfactory jury The pro
iuction of tho corpus dectun In court in the form OF
the poison itself n tangible and visible FORM is very
properly insisted by the defense in all OF
tanic poisoning, and it is equally due to the accused
well TO- the scientific witness otherwise The former Ii
hung s at ALL upon the simple unsustaincd word ard
opinion Of the lutttr.
1t does not appear moreover. that ordinary
n d we'd i'm he
autopsy:
"Perr Smith. Tho janitor Of the University ef Mary
land testified to the custody Of the key Of tha labora
tory that the only persons having thereto while
the jar containing the stomach was therein w,re PrOfs.
Chew and Miles and Dr. Williams"
Evidently, the moral force Of Prof AiKcDs evidence
is Justly sud most seriously impaired by the facts
brought ont by the nation; by his want Of
care keeping his records and trusting matters of such
grave Importance to his memory and yet more by dis
crtpancy between his recent evidence and that prev
ously made before Ohe Criminal Court Of Baltimore
which s but poorly explained by the witness thinking
II s owing to clerical error, not error of Judgment"
Such discrepancy Is sufficiently damaging when IT Is
simply discrepancy. But no chemist read the
clung clause the extract above given without
ment unless the newspaper report il totally false 1t II
best to DC Prof. Akin the benefit Of this doubt until
authentic copy Of the record Of his evidence ae
| when it can he reverted to again.
THIS is intended to express opinion the guilt Of
Mrs Wharton. Circumstances are strongly against her,
and she may not be 1.-THE last of the Borgias
the wspapers say but constrained to say that
far as the chemical evidence has been made public. 1t s
insufficient to hang, the prisoner Chemical science is
far and discriminating TO admit Of any reason
able doubt matters Of fact pertaining TO the presence
| or absence Of any metallic poison whatever; and the
chemist bound TO present not only his opinions but TO
forfy them by clear account Of his methods and the
| exhibition Of bis products in every to1ical cGse.
| Respectfully, CHEsnT
| December 1s, 1871.
i