National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-12-23
rARn ERnlT MP S1LLrH

The following card from DR.. Smith, giving his
version OF the matter, is printed this morning.
This gentleman was born and educated in the
District of Columbia, and it is matter of grath-
cation that he is enabled to place himself in a
position that will relieve him from the suspicion
of having been connected with the diabOlical
business with which his name was associated:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10, 1874.
To the Editor Of the National Republican:
SIR: The publication Of my name in connection
with DR.. Grove in your paper and the allusions to
me are most unjust, as had DO knowledge what
ever Of his being engaged in any unprotessional
transaction. l was arranging TO associate him
with me in a legitimate business and although
we had not begun, II was made known to many
that such was our intention, and we were pre-
pairing journal and other business material to
that end. Until three or four weeks ago had
not seen DR.. Grove for many years. at which
time he WIS demOnstrator Of anatomy at one of
our medical colleges and a physician in good
standing, and suspicion Of any improperly on
his part never entered my mind. When the dis
coyery was made OF his being engaged in an ille-
Ultimate business his intended connection with
me and our names being coupled together has
placed me in a very embarrassing position. and
your report makes it appear to those unac-
duafnted with all the circumstances that was
also engaged with him in the same; but such is
not the case, as knew nothing about IL and had
nothing to do with it whatever. My practice has
always been, and always will be, a strictly hon
Orable and legitimate one. / honor my profess
sion, and no one more thoroughly abhors every
species Of professional improperly than l do;
and had known, or even suspected, anything
wrong with the Doctor, 1 would never have asso.
ciated with him. He informed me that he would
be for while attending TO the practice of a
friend Of his who out Of the city; but as It is
not unusual for one physician 10 attend the pa
tieIts Of another, who may be sick or wish to be
absent for a while, gave 1t no further thought
My arrangements had not been completed or
announcing my return and soliciting the patron
age Of the public here, consequently / have had
no professional calls at my house. In fact, 1
have done no business here at all yet. never
was in this Doctors office oftener than half a
dozen times, and then only for a moment TO see
DR.. Grove. l never met any OF his patients
never saw one Of them, and know nothing about
them; and my name has been mixed up in this
affair simply from the circumstance Of my Inten-
tiOn Of sssOciatiDg him with me in an honorable
and legitimate practice. make this statement
Mr.. Editor, so that you may understand my DO
sition, and do me the Justice to exOnerate me. I
feel 1t q duty owe to my family, to my profess
sion, to the public and to myself; and trust you
will feel 1t yours, as journalist of integrity to
eXOuerate me entirely from any completely what
ever in the affair. During my medical career in
the field during our late war as assistant sur
geOD, in Douglas hospital, as president of the
Medical Association OF the District of Columbia
in general convention In 1867, and as q general
practitioner, have never been guilty Of a single
act unprOfessiOnal, and l feel deeply the dis
tressing humiliation Of being drawn into such
disgrsceful publicity through the misconduct of
another; and feel satisfied that you would not
knowingly do any one an injustice; and now that
you have oil the circumstances, you will do me
mil justice.
Very respectfully, yours,
JOHN E. SMITH