Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1872-01-26
The Testimony Of Chemical Rxpsrts.

/ 10e 1e&1M00y 0I Vnem1cN 6xpSk9
The conflict OF testimony between seien.s
ltifc men in judicial Investigations has
often been the subject Of remark. a no.
ted instance Of such conflict Is now pre-.
sented IN the Wharton murder trial. a
striking instance Of an unexpeeted source
fof error in scientific invcstigations was
Witnessed in the last case tried By Mr..
Justice Jones 10 the Superior Court in
New York city, being the case in, which
the house of j. & j. Colman established
their right 10 . bulls head 90 their trade
/ mark on mustard. Professor Dofemus.
one of the most celebrated analytical
chemists Of New York, witness called
10y the defendant. had alleged, 10 the re-s
sult of his experiments. that mustard con-s
tained over eleven er.cent. of starch. }
Two other analytical chemists. one Of
them Professor Chandler, of Columbia
College. alleged that mustard contained
|no starch. The evidence was in this COM.
|aicting condition when both parties rested,
|and the case was adjourned until the next
morning for argument. Ii the meantime
Professor Doremus applied to che counsel
|of tie defendant TO move 10 80 far open the
case as to allow him tovindicate by actual
experiment in open court the correctness
|of bis Statements as 10 existence of starch
in mustard. The motion was made and
granted and on the 5th of December last
the court room presented the appearance
|of . chemical laboratory. eo.sssz a. ss..sa;;p
The Professor. with bis assistant, pre-
pared mustard TO experiment 10 open court
BY pounding the seed in mortar. He
placed the crushed seed 10 distilled water
and boiled the mixture over aspifit lamp.
He then sthrew some Of the solution On
sheets of filtering paper, applied his ohezn-
|ical test and exhibited TO the court On
paper, the characteristio blue iodide ol
starch. The experiment was varied in
many ways with the same result. and at
the end Of the testimony many sheets Of
paper were thus colored. The demonstrs-
ton seemed perfect. On Professor Chan.
|dler being called 10 the stand he made
which On dis view dem6hstfas
Ted that starchdid mot exiatz in mustard.
and stated that be was not satisfied with
the experiments that bad been made b.
the defendants witness. was.. s.'s ns5 !
"Why, said the defendants counsel,
|''are You not satisfied with the reaction,
for starch exhibited By DR.. Doremus on
the dozen or more sheets OF filtering pa-
per 20 = ss'sss@ - a fs1 -
ssI am not certain 10 begin with, "a said
Professor Chandler. "that the paper would
not have produced that reaction without
the mustard. !" Whereipo1 the counsel
handed to the witness some of the clean
paper aud asked, him to, apply the testAto
il himself He did so. and the result was
q deep blue. thus showing the illusory
nature of the prior tests, and that the ex.
pertinent was entirely worthless as proof
that starch was contained In mustard. = fa'
Now here was chemist OF great learn 2
ing and experience, pledging himself un-
der oath TO the presence Of starch in mus I
tard. exhibiting in the frankest way his
experiments in open court and in the pres~s
ence Of eminent chemists. and producing
as the result the characteristics bluewhich
concededly demonstrated the presence Of
starch. If the question Of life or death
depended on this testimony could o Jury
have been in doubt : and yet BY oversight
q vital element 10 the problem had bsefnI
overlooked. The thing sought for was
not in the substance analysed, but in the
paper on which for convenience 10 had
been poured.--N. 2. En-. Post.s 55a .saaf