The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1879-11-27

methods by which Mrs. Ratcllff might
have disposed, in advance, of this evil
dence of her crime. The Court, of
course, in summing up, cautioned the
jury against attaching weight to these
hypothesis of the Prosecuting Attor-
ney.
The Court, however, put much en-
phasis on the medical testimony for the
prosecution, and on the calm declaration
of Mrs. Ratcliff to DR.. Culbert, 81 sup
pose that have killed him.
Having conducted the autopsy, and
afterward made qualitative ANALYSIS of
the contents of the dead mans stomach,
l was put upon the stand as a witness
for the defense.
Then / saw the prisoner for the first
time in more than five years. When
had taken the oath and answered the
preliminary questions, Mrs. Ratcliff
raised the veil which she had worn since
the trial began, and looked me in the
face with the well remembered eyes of
Miss Borgier. Il
confess that my behavior during the
first few moments of surprise afforded
some ground for the reports that were
afterwards current concerning my rela-
tons with the prisoner. Her eyes
chained not only mine, but my tongue
also. / saw Jerusalem again, and the
face framed in blue sky peering down
into the amphitheater of the old Medical
College. 1t was only after a struggle
which attracted the attention of Judge,
jury, bar, and spectators that | was able
to proceed with my testimony.
That testimony was strong for the ac-
cused. My knowledge of the case was
wholly post-mortem. 1t began with the
autopsy. Nothing had been found that
indicated poisoning by laudanum or by
any other agent. There was no morbid
appearance of the intestinal canal; no
fullness of the cerebral vessels, no Serious
effusion. Every appearance that would
have resulted from death by poison was
wanting in the subject. That, of course,
was merely negative evidence But,
furthermore, my chemical analysis had
proved the absence of the poison in the
system. The opium odor could not be
detected. l had tested for morphine
with nitric acid, permuriate of iron,
chromate of potash, and, most i'm
portant of all, iodic acid. | had tested
again for meconic acid with the per-
muriate of iron. | had tested by Las
saigne's process, by Dublane's, and by
Flandin's. As far as the resources of |
organic chemistry could avail, l had |
proved that, Notwithstanding the symp- !
toms of Mr.. Ratcliff's case before death, |
death had not resulted from laudanum |
or any other poison known to science.
The questions by the prosecuting
counsel as to my previous acquaintance |
with the prisoner, | was able to an
swer truthfully in manner that did not
shake the force of my medical testimony.
And it was chiefly on the strength of
this testimony that the jury, after a short
deliberation, returned verdict of not
guilty.
Did l swear falsely? No; for science
bore me out in every assertion. / knew
that not a drop of laudanum or grain of
morphine had passed Ratcliff's lips.
Ought L to nave declared my belief re-
garding the true cause of the mans
death, and told the story of my previous
observations of Miss Borgier's case ? !
No; for no court of justice would have
listened to that story for single mo g..
ment. / knew that the woman did not |
murder her husband. Yet | believed |
and knew-as surely as we can know
any thing where the basis of ascertained |
fact is slender and the laws obscure
that she poisoned him, poisoned him to
death 90ith her eyes.
think that it will be generally con-
ceded by the profession that am neither
a sensationalist nor prone to lose my |
self-command in the mazes of physico-
psychologist speculation. l make the |
foregoing assertion deliberately, fully |
conscious of all that it implies.
What was the mystery of the noxious f.
influence which this woman exerted |
through her eyes? What was the record
of her ancestry, the secret of predisposi-
ton in her case? BY what occult proc
ess of evolution did her glance deprive
the toxieal effect of the paparer Somnit-
erunl? How did she come to be a
WOman-PoppyP ! can not yet answer
these questions. Perhaps | shall never
be able to answer them.
But if there is need of further proof
of the sincerity of my denial of any SEN
timent on my part which might have
led me to shield Mrs Ratcliff by PERU
ry, | may say that | have now in my
possession letter from her, written at
ter her acquittal, proposing to endow
me with her fortune and herself as well
as copy of my reply, respectfully de-
Ginning the offer-Ned0 York Sun.