, 1874-05-03
TESTIMONY OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS.

the netty iealousies and factious rivalry OF the
1ouar walks of life, But it is fact that intelec-
tual advancement miugates in no perceptlble de-
gree the jealousy with which competitors in the
same field regard one another. Did one a1t1at
ever pra,se the work Of another engaged in the
same branch Of art ? To learn every defect in
portrait, apply To the painters professional
neighbor. The professional actor is merciless
and bigoted critic. and toleratos excellence In
his best friend as calmly as bull tho traditional
red rag. or the corner grocer his rival on
the opposite side OF the street. The pull
nit Is not free from this selfish spirit;
the medical fraternity is steeped in the essential
extract Of it. The schools OF medicine are abso-
lutte. and In their mutual intolerance exhibit only
the spirit which actuates the individual adherent
OF each.
This Was illustrated few years ago in Baltl-
more, and recent events have brought it out
moro clearly. The man Bchosppe. now IN
the penitentiary at Joliet for forgery, Was
tried for bis life in Pennsylvania. accused OF
poisoning lady for her money. The medical
testimony OF Dr.. Aiken, Of Baltimore, previously
4 celebrated chemist. showed the presence OF
poison in the stomach Of the deceased lady, and
secured verdict Of guilty and capital sentence
for the prisoner. DR.. Aiken had for yearz stood
alone u the supreme authority in to1icology
in MARYLAND and the adjoining States. Occupy
ing such position. he incurred the envy and
malice of many Of his brother practitioners. An
opportunity occurred in this trial to break down
his influence and overthrow his sovereignty.
The medical profession Of Maryland combined
against him in this case contradicted him IN
every particular, and secured second trial for
schoeppe. Throwing the weight OF their united
influence against Prof. Aiken, bis opponents
saved the life OF the accused.
Then came the celebrated Wharton trial. hrs.
Wharton war charged with poisoning Gen. Ketch-
um and attempting the life Of the
cashier Of Baltimore bank. The circum-
stances we're very strong in evidence against
her. Prof. Aiken WAS summoned to give bis
testimony as an expert It Was damaging to the
lady. He declared that poison had been found
in the eEOG1Rcu OK 0GA~ AeII4uA414 AAAA AAAs* e4U
symptoms Of tho younger man pointed to the
same drugs. Again the medical profession rose
against Prof. Aiken one man- So unanimous
waa their outcry against him that it was heard
and believed ali over the country, and believed
mainly because 1t WAS heard. Prot. Aiken WAS
pronounced pompous quack, and Mrs. Whar-
toms acquittal was natural consequence.
And now comes the sequel Triumphant in
their previous success, the Baltimore doctors
submitted a resume Of the lattor case to Dr..
Gaylor, OF London, author Of standard work
| on toxicology. One would suppose that tho de-
cision Of referee should be final at any rate,
| to the party who chose him There is no DOUBT
| that the Baltimore doctors would have agreed to
! DR.. Gaylo1's decision, had 1t favored them. It
| did not, however. It pronounced Dr.. Aiken
right and his bitter opponents wrong. Conse-
quently, the latter have held meeting and
resolved "that DR.. Gaylos's decision must have
been based on false premises" There must
hare been a miBtake somewhere. OF course /.
could not be On tho part Of the appellants. All
Of which shows how completely partisan fury
may blind conscientious men to the truth. It
| likewise illustrates the unfeliab1ty Of that sora
| OF testimony called expert, and based only on
individual experiences.