The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-12-21
Not an Eye for an Eye, But $500.
Editor of the Austin Statesman:

, My mind has lately been called [,
the relation between science and Jus
: tice. They are confederate. Our law!
recognize such dependence, and on
courts of justice frequently apply &
special science for aid in rendering
unto Caesar the things that are
: Caesars" But the laws seem very in,
adequate to protect the halls of Justice
from the domination of ignorance
wrapped in the robe of science. 4
man may call himself a scientist and
present himself as such at the bar of
Justice and install himself her guar.
dian and director. He can take the
lives, liberty, honor and money of his
fellow men and deposit them at pleas
ure in the scales of justice, and she
has instituted no definite means of
protecting herself against insult and
perversion. How often does innocence
suffer through the dictates of science ?
l mean whitewashed science; that
kind of science which is represented
by those who cultivate a parrot-like
acquaintance with the language of
science, while ignorant of the great
underlying principles. Science may
be known negatively by the fact that
it never contradicts itself-always
says the same thing, about the same
thing, under the same circumstances.
This brings me to the subject of the
first thought in this article, the bun
die of contradiction, labeled expert
evidence" placed on the trembling
beam of justice, in Judge Fulmores
court by three ophthalmological ey-
perts on Saturday, November %, 1882.
Let us apply the plumb, level and
square of science to this bundle
and see if it belongs to science.
One of the most prominent ele-
ments is contradiction. Then it must
be rejected from the halls of science
not necessarily from the halls of
Justice; science can protect herself
Justice not. Science can soon detect
the ring of the counterfeit scientific
volce-justice not. But as to the
character of that bundle, let the tex
perts" speak for themselves, and let us
see the amount of assistance to Justice
| furnished in that bundle, and from all
this learn how so-called scientists may
tamper with the rights of men.
I Expert No. l says the lens of the
wounded eye of Mr.. Swenson is in
position and intact, and that the
vitreous humor is so Opaque that he.
with the ophthalmoscope, cannot
penetrate to the retina so as to enable
him to determine its conditi IN ard
that of the chOroid; and that he re-
CARDS the case as hopeless as to al.y
further improvement.
| Expert No. 2 says he has thoroughly
examined the eye, and ALWAYS does
when he examines at all, treated the
eye all through the trouble arising
from the blow by Mr.. johnson on the
l4th of August last; gave the eve
several examinations; finds the retina
ruptured Ga part which No. / could not
see at alD; finds the lens dislocateG;
does not know whether tn lens and
capsule are both dislocated together.
or the lens has escaped from the cap
oule, leaving 1T in poSition-the capsule
OF the lens has no posteriOr wall,
nothing between the lens and vitreous
humor except the hyaloid membrane
has not noticed any opacity of the
cornea-pronounces the case hopeless
as to further improvement.
Expert No. says he examined the
eye pretty thoroughly on the goth Of
September, 1852, one month and seven
days after the alleged injury; found
il slight opacity of the cornea
nearly central -posterior synechia al
most total, which shows that plastic
iritis must have existed at some
time previous to the examination:
found the anterior capsule ruptured
lens absent, no sign of dislocation OF
lens. The condition of the capsule
would justify the conclusion that the
lens had been extracted; but the con-
clusion is headed off by the fact of the
absence OF the characteristic scar at
the margin of the cornea. Hence he
concluded that the anterior capsule
must have been punctured at the time
of the wound of the cornea which re-
suited in the aforesaid opacity of the
cornea. The puncture of the capsule
was probably enlarged by the
swelling Of the lens under the ac-
ton of the aqueous humor
by which the lens was dis
solved. and then carried off by
the absorbents. He believes that the
iritis which resulted in the abovemen-
toned posterior synechia was induced
by the swelling of the lens, and its
consequent pressure against the iris.
He also found the posterior capsule
partially Opaque, so much so, that the
ophthalmoscope did not enable him to
obtain a clear view of the vitreous
humor, optic papilla, retina or choroid.
Judging from the degeee of vision of
the eye, and the degree of opacity Of
the posterior capsule, he believes the
vitreous humor, optic papilla, retina
and choroid to be in pretty good con-
dition, and that the case promises
much through the operation of dis
cission of the posterior capsule. His
final decision is that one month and a
quarter is not sufficient time for the
| eye, after having received the injury
resulting in the condition of the parts
just described, to reach the state of
| quIescence in which he found the eve
on the goth of September, 1882. Hence
the injury must have been inflicted
several months and perhaps years be-
fore the 18th day of August, 1882.
Now let us condense and classify
the contradictions to get little bet
ter view.
No. 1 says the lens is in position,
No. says it is dislocated. but still
in the eye.
No. 3 says it is entirely gone and
no sign of it in the eye.
No. says the capsule is entire and
normal,
No. 2 says he does not know wheth-
er it is in position or not, the capsule
of the lens has no posterior wall.
No. 3 says it is in position, but an
terror OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES partially
opaque, and prevents a clear view of
| the vitreous h, etc.
Nos. and cannot see retina, etc.
No. 2 can see it, hence both capsule
| Gf preseut) and vitreous b must he
| clear.
Nos. and 2say the case is hopeless
and injury inflicted on the 18th of Au-
gust, 1882.
No. 3 says the case is not hopeless,
and that the injury was not inflicted
on the 14th of August, 1882, but long
| before.
1t would require strange plumb,
rule and square to fit that-no evil
dence of science. My space is
nearly full and / must own up.
l am one of the trio who have
perpetrated this grave insult to sci
ence and perversion of justice, and /
am sure that we ought to prepare the
way for science to speak for herself,
and will show my respect for her and
my confidence in her teachings by
making the proposition that we, the
trio, send the owner of the eye, Mr..
Swenson, to st. Louis, Cincinnati and
New York, and have the verdict Of
those sons of science, Drs. Green, Will
liams, Noyes and Knapp and others,
and pledge that if the verdict be ad-
' verse to No. 3. i will nav the entire