The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-02

Undoubtedly the witnesses upon whose
testimony rested the most important point
that was doubtful in the recent trial were
so discredited that jury could not put
their oaths against mans liberty, and that
being the case there was no other course to
take than to acquit the prisoner because
the only further evidence Of the fact which
these persons were mainly relied upon
to prove was clouded with uncer-
tainty. Poison was found in many
fluids, as shown on the trial. found
individually; and poison Of the kind
alleged. Professor Doremus' analyses
demonstrated the presence Of tartrate OF
anthony, and the attempt to belittle his
operations in the case was . mistake on the
part of the defence. But the poison being
found as described the points to be deter
mined were who placed it in the fluids. and
were any drinks containing poison actually
administered to the woman? 1t was the
theory Of the prosecution that the poison
was put in the drinks by the accused, and
that such poisoned drinks were continuously
given to the woman. But the defence denied
that the woman was Mt any time poisoned.
and held that the poison found was de-
posted by the enemies Of the accused pur-
posely to be made the basis of an accusa-
ton against him. This latter position was
not supported by q title Of evidence. On
the contrary, the charge that Vosburgh
poisoned the drinks was made highly prob
able by great deal of testimony; but, rs
the witnesses who swore to this fact were
shown to be animated personally against
him, the jury did not deem this compara-
lively unsupported probability sufficient
to justify verdict of guilty. On
the medical evidence which should have
Supported this testimony-the prosecution
broke down. On both sides the medical
evidence was lame but for the defence,
whose object was to cover the accused with
a cloud of protecting doubt. lame testimony
answered the purpose, while the prosecu-
ton should have made this part OF its case
MS clear MS day. This, we believe, was pos
sible. There was little exception to the re-
markable want of acquaintance shown
by the medical witnesses with the
effects of tartar emetlo. 1t was not
a display on which the profession
can congratulate itself Tartar emetic is
a medicine that acts as an irritant when
directly applied to the tissues, but which
taken up in the circulation acts on the
nervous system as sedative It acts so
theoretically in this way that 1t may over
whelm and destroy life at once If given
without gradation in large dose. It's
emetic effects also follow from its sedative
operation. The act Of vomiting depends
upon the loss o, that control which
q certain nerve nominally exercises over
the movements Of the stomach. Relieved
of this control unrestrained by that nerve,
the gastric surface reacts against tho con-
tact Of any substance whatever and rejects
it. Tartar ometic partially paraly yes that
nerve. That Is its first operation. But ii
its administration is continued, and il
larger doses are given, its characteristic oper-
alton is extended to other nerves and to the
whole cerebro-spinal system. 1t then
ceases to cause vomiting, because, in addi-
ton to the nerve 1t first paralyzed, it has
also paralyzed nerves whose energy
was necessary to the very act
of the rejection of the contents
of the stomach. In this condition the sys-
tenn is said to "tolerats" the medicine. How
far its administration may be carried de-
ponds upon the vigor, natural or morbid,
Of the brain. Graves, Of Dublin, gave, in
his cerebral cases in fever, from ten to
twenty grains day for many days in sue
cession. and the effects of his largest doses
passed off within twenty-four hours. This
is the exact contrary Of what was testified
in Jersey City.