New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-02
THE WHARTON TRIAL.

question from Mr. steele answered that Prof Toney In
his testimony had stated chemical impOsybility when
he said he got solution OF tartar emoo when treating
sulphde OF anthony precpate with potash If no had
gotten what he said he did, he would have proved no
tartar enetc there sulphido OF nntmony is
pound OF sulphur and antimOny potash IL composed OF
oxygen and potassium: II you dissolve sulphde OF
tmony In potash you make double compound the first
Is potash and oxide or anthony. and the second is
sulphde of potassium in combination with tersuphide
OF antimOnyi you get clear solution and II You add
acid you decomposo the suphide Of potassium and mako
sulphurotted hydrogen.
The crosse Examination OF witness was resumed-In
reply to Mr. Revc witness said he never examined
the stomach for tartar ometic, but had experience I'm
chemical analysis Witness shown tho sediment in
the test tube in which Prof MeCulloch had performed
his experiment in Court and said 1t did not far he
knew, resemble that from tartar emetic Witness
menced the study OF chemistry In 1889, and grad
uated in 1si5; has been engaged in mneraogy and
geology In the silver and gold mines OF North Carolina,
but had given analytical chemistry his attention during
all the timo since his graduation; had analysed
stomach for arsenic, found the metal and oper-
ated IT. that was in Marburg Germany;
after producing the metal tested it with nearly
all tho known tests; used Marsh's test which
witness described; you weigh millegram Of ar
senc but requires great amillegram Is the one
sixtydfth part of grain there arc two scales which
said to weigh onetenth OF milegram and witness
has weighed that quantity but the scales must be new
and perfectly accurate such small quantity cannot DO
relied to base result reactions could be gotten
from part OF grain OF
arsenic but does not know that 1t could be done with
that amount OF anmony does not suppose the investi-
cation could be carried far enough, and anthony Is not
considered poison, unless found in large quantities.
does not know OF any substance. except anthony,
which would give all the results obtained by Prof.
Aiken, that is II tho anthony was pure; have. bow
ever, known the same characteristics in tests Of
antmony to be proved perfectly untrust worthy;
has known bsmuth to produce an orange red color II
you have acid solution, and pour In any suphde OF
ammonium the latter Is decOmpOscd matter whether
any metals are there or not largo quantity OF sulphur
is precipitaed that sulphur had yellow color. and il
their pure state give brown color or dark precptato
like bsmuth, that brown preciptae would be covered
by yellow color from the sulphur ana would he III APP
pearauce like an antmonia precpate; copper may asO
give that result obtained an orange preclptate from
Lead but that IL no proof that antlm0ny IL present no
sulphur mixed with them they would not give these
results could determine from the white cloud whether
Attorney General syc5ter then read from Tlylor's
Medical Jurisprudence page l27 The process to deter
mine the presence Of anthony.
Witness" Taylor IS wrong"
The Attorney General then read from Wormly, page
223 and asked several questions Witness said WOrmy
aud Aiken both made The mistake. and both were
wrong in some stops they followed Chemistry certainly
gives Trustworthy results. In cases OF yeSetaOie
poisoning, some vegetable poisons may be reproduced
among sess 70 baYe h sgI reSyrddmced but
but 1t is doubtful. II vegetable posons have gone into
| believe | could reproduce every one OF thelni
the books cay some can be Reproduced, and
there proof that vegetable poison is the cause OF
death; II such impurities anthony reside In hydro
by Marsh's test II it is found 10 be pure. it would not
become impure by remaining IN laboratory PrGi Ake1
the constituents OF tartar cInetc; understand him TO
be looking for tartar emeif ne Wa1 opEng ior anu
poisoning from cream Of tartar has been rsporedi
tive proof.
ply question from Mr. Steele witness said the white
to he dried tested Witness exhibited the jury
piece of paper Weighing 10 mlegrams, with each mile
the IL 500 part OF a mllegram which small that
the took 1t mp with great difficulty on the point Of knife
pieces put I'm vial and handed to the fury. He
said the suphide of annQny precipitate as described
NH Of the o T PARTICLES sEhi6Sd
TESTIMONY OF DR.. j. J. REESE
DR.. John J. Reese swOrn-Resides in Philadelphia is
praccing physician at present occupies the Chair of
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology the University
of Pennsylvania formerly Professor OF Chemistry
in the Pennsylvania College has in connection with his
present Chair made tOXcology special study but does
give it the attention analytical chemist would
heard all Aikcn's testimony; Aikens analysis does not
establish proof Of the presence of anthony in Kech
ums stomach or in the tumber; reason is the en-
tire omission Of some very important and characteristic
tests this poison alleged to be present. another is
that when tests said to be characteristic were used
some failed third that IN the toss most
relied on there were of faacy which rendered
them uncertain and inconclusiye; Aiken omitted 70
produce the metal anthony in sufficient quantity
to enable the analyst to subject it to all
the characteristic tests; this was an important
omission it was very easy to obtain the metal and
operate upon il Is very easily obtained II the metal Is
there TO his mind no test would he sufficient which ala
produce the metal and In sufficient quantity IT, be
operated secondly of the tests called characteristic
which to have been used in this analysis two failed
witness heard all OF Prof TOney's testimony or his
the presence OF primary had also read Prof Aken's
report ccfully witness returning to the characters
.is aid they wrre that the application of
nitric acid to one OF the spots failed
thatthe experiment with the blow pipe faed TO give
The characteristic results and witness would. just here
simple and beautiful method Of separating crystalline,
substances from organic such as tartar emec
process Of this test explained; thirdly, there was
falacy necessarily attending the employment OF those
placed the failure OF these three tests he based his
opinion OF the insnhlcency of. OF Prof; Aiken,s
ter placed under precisely The same conditions
Scid solution and -" precipated With sup6urctted
hydrogen 1t will give orangered precipiae, which
will dissolve more less hydrOchlOrc acid ana the
resulting solutions, when thrown into water will give
white cloud which ultimately becomes precpltite the
through which the suphuretted hydrogen passed. the
exact color Will depend on the nature oil the cOlOrng
matter through which it il passed in the organic
natter If stream of sulphuretted hydrogen ia passed
through solution Of choral or tincure OF yellow jess-
mine there is remarkable resemblance In color III the
prccptato thus obtained 10 antmonal precptates; or
this witness was personally unaware until ne
these experiments. II followed out with other
organic substances would develop other results in rea
tion TO this coincidence; the precipate which McCul-
Loeb obtained was to great extent soluble in hydro
chloric acid and produced white cloud when thrown
into water that cloud precipate was again soluble
in hydrochorc acid TO great extent would say
entirely; II Into this solution suphide Of ammonium be
dropped. IL VIII produce the reddish color or yeOwred
color; when copper l. put n II Will make deposit on
the copper the experiment tried with yellow Jessa
mine, aud tried IL, too.