New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-25
rND M TIE VUARTON TRIAL.

Tho result of the protracted and interesting
trial of Mira. Wharton for the murder OF Gch'
Ketchum will not, probably, surprise many
pcople. The case attracted great attention ny
tbe peculiar mystery which enveloped tho
main incidents of Gen. Kctchum's sickness
end death. as well as by the curious details
brought out in the examination into the prln-
cinles of toxicology. The social position OF
tho accused and her reputed victim probably
had Int little to do with the interest which
the case excited in the public mind. Inc at-
tempt to unravel tangle OF testimony, In
which may be hidden a terrible crime, has al
ways o morbid fascination.
The evidence against Mrs. Wharton has been
wholly circumstantial. Rufus Choate, sum
ming I'D in the celebrated case OF Albert ..
Tirrell, accused of the murder OF his MISTRESS
merely told tho jury stories of innocent men
convicted of murder on circumstantial EVIL
dence. until he shook their faith III all evil
dence. and made them trcmblo at the thougnt
of the network of damning circumstances
which might suddenly surround the most
puiItless man. Then he asked juryman,
quietly, "WhO saw Albert j. Tirreu Kill
"Maria DickfOrd 7" This question was repeated
several times, rs if expecting an answer from
somebody With prodgiOus emphasis, he an
swered at last himself, "NObody," and sat
down, his case being gained for his client. This
inquiry, with change only in the personages,
has been constantly repeated In the course OF
the Wharton trial. Nobody saw Mrs. Whar-
ton administer poison to Gen. ketchum, ana
when tho learned experts came into Court to
apply tho "uuerring rules" OF science to the
case, lay minds were at once confused
and bafllcd. There was an irreconcileable dis
AGREEMENT among the doctors, and even the
strong circumstantial evidence was clouded
with impenetrable doubt. Great stress was
laid upon the testimony Of Prof. Aiken ana
tho professional group which he seemed to
represent. But, as was shown in letter from
ono of the most distinguished chemists
in the country (printed in THE TRIBUNE, Dec.
3Oth), the moral force of Prof. Aiken's evil
dence was seriously and justly impaired by the
facts brought out on cross-2xamlnatlon j
by want of care in keeping his records,
and trusting his memory with matters OF
grave Importance; and by discrep-
ancy between his testimony on the final trial
and that given before the Criminal Court OF
Baltimore. The defense availed themselves OF
these weak points in the prosecution and shook
the fabric of chemical evidence to the ground
This gone, there was absolutely nothing left
of the case against tho accused. The verdict
of the jury was anticipated by the public.
Whatever may be the private, unuttered
opinions of people as to the guilt or innocence
of one accused of murder, it is more than ever
clear that it is difficult to convict upon cir
cumstantial evidence. And it must be con-
fessed that, justly or unjustly, most people
will consider that Science has not cut dig
nfcd figure in the trial which has just been
finished. Those who followed the case may
not have had all their suspicious allayed. but
they will not have them strengthened by the
| evidence of chemical experts. The verdict Of
the jury is just and right under the circum-
stances but the popular belief that great
deal of medical science is purely empirical
will be fortified by the details and result of
| the trial.