Wilmington daily commercial., 1872-01-08
MEDICAL AND CHEMICAL EXPERTS IN THE
WHARTON TRIAL.

It is evident that the case for the prosecution,
IN the trial of Mrs. Wharton, has broken down.
1t ia not, certainly proven that she is innocent
but the proof Of her guilt is shown to be unreli-
able, and inexact II not absolutely fallacious And
upon such evidence of crime, nobody can, or
ought to be, punished.
Now the case against Mrs. Wharton, at any
rate, was all circumstantial. Nobody saw her
kill General Ketchum. But it was theorized that
she did kill him. by giving him poison. There
were three links In the evidence which was to
show this list, it was said she had a motive
she owed him money, the payment of which he
was urging. I'd, it was said she procured, pos
sessed, and had poison, and that some was found
in tumbler, in which she had prepared for him
some medicine or draught 3d. it was declared
that poison was found in his stomach.
But on the first point, it is indicated, il not
proven, by the testimony for Mrs. Wharton that
her assertion that the General had but recently
owed her, not she him, was the fact, and the al
legged motive is damaged, If not destroyed The
second point we pass over. It probably remains
the strongest Of the three, against the accused.
But upon the third and conclusive one, the tes-
timony for the defense has so antagonized, and
contemned, and dscredited the testimony for the
State, that no jury of twelve unprejudiced men
could think Of declaring that poison ,oas found,
when the effect of their declaration ia to send a
respectable woman to the gallows.
And so, We say, the case breaks down. But
one Of the strongest conclusions to be drawn is
an opinion, not merely that the professional OK
perts who testified for the State that they found
A. .4.1
ful or unscientifc, or incompetent, but that the
tests Of chemical science, thus far invented dis
covered, and applied,to the detection of poisons
in the stomach are terribly insufficient as evil
dence upon which person accused of murder
should be hung. The medical gentelmen who
testified, pro and con, upon this trial,
were, we have no doHbt, gentlemen Of
hne scientific attainments - perhaps not the
highest, though we will not deny even that,
without more proof. But these gentlemen show
by their testimony that their science is not yet
so positive and 80 certain, even in the aecepta-
tion OF the profession itself as to make the con-
clusion inevitable after certain tests that poison
is OF is not found While Professors Akin and
Tonly declare that their tests prove the presence
Of poison in the stomach, Professors Mccullough
and Reese, and Genth assert with with just as
much positiveness that that those tests proUe
nothing of the sort, and that, very probably, no
poison whatever may be present
Now, one side of the case is az good as the
other. Perhaps DR.. Akin is right. II it were
merely matter Of speculative philosophy, we
might decide that he was. But here, it is a
question Of life and death. 1t is a question
whether Mrs. Wharton shall be hung for mur-
der. And we say, again, that the complete, the
dangerous, the terrible, insuhiciency of this
"ehemical expert" testimony, for the conviction
of accused persons in capital cases, is shown as
clearly as sunlight In this trial, money could
be had for the defence, and this insuficency is
fully displayed, but if it had been some poor
prisoner, (perhaps we might instance schpnpe,
of osrlisle,) the judgment of the prosecutions
professors might have been taken, unquestioned,
and the unfortunate accused swung high as
Haman upon professional evidence which is now
shown to be not enough to hang a cat