Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1884-01-22
THE ASYLUM INVESTIGATION.


go over till next issue.
, THE ASYLUM INVESTIGATION.
) THE MYSTERIOUS POISONING STILL A
MYSTERY.
POLITICS AT THE ASYLUM.
As we noticed last week the Legislative Com
m1ttee appointed to investigate the affairs OF
the Western Lunatic Asylum arrived here on
last Monday and went into session that night
The committee was constituted of Senators E.
E. Meredith. of Prince William, ]. j. Mcdonald
of Northumberland. and H. 8. Trout, of Roam
oke, and Delegates DIR, j. NJ. Lawson, of Isle OF
Wight DR.. R. B. Tabb, of Norfolk county, DIR.
1T. Wilkins, Of Northampton. H. Parker, of
Norfolk city. and Jno. N. Opie, of Augusta, who
| was elected Chairman.
The evidence taken before the coroners jury
at the time of the death, from poisoning of the
six patients at the Asylum was read to the
Committee by its clerk Jno. M. Kinney, Esq.
The session of the Committee was resumed
Tuesday morning and continued until wednes-
day night, during which time numerous wit
nesses were examined and the Asylum authori-
ties were represented by Messrs. White and
Gordon as counsel.
Richard P. Bell, commemorative Attorney
of Staunton, testified that he had written to the
Pinkerton Detective Agency the day after he
saw the report of Superintendent Hamilton
requesting them to give fuller Information
| than was contained in their report as publish
ed by DR.. Hamilton. His letter to the Agency
was read as also the reply to it which was only
sent after he had written the second time. The
| reply was as folIows
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 20.
r. P. BELL, ESQ.
COMMUNICATING Attornav
DEAR SIR:-Your etter of Dec Goth. arrived
In due time and sent 1t to our General Super
intendent for his action. He has been very
busy indeed, having been absent from the Of
flee for the past three weeks. and hence has had
no opportunity of replying to your letter. I am
satisfied he will do 81 soon as he gets IN OBJ
portunfty. Yours truly.
Ri. LINDEN, supt
Since then he had heard nothing from the
Agency
DIR. R. 8. HAMILTON
testified thst he knew nothing more about the
poisoning than was contained In his evidence
given before the coroner's jury, but he had
some reason for believing that the Detective
knew more about it than he (H.) did
The report of the Detective was read the con-
clusion of which is follows:
The conclusion arrived at from reading the
reports of the detective and personal inter-
views, is that the poisoning resulted from no
Of any Of the faculty, but was svidensiy the
work of design and has been perpstratsd by
parties outside q The InstttEtioR ghsSs-
az nsssssary and would also be ipjudi cious 10
r. J. LINDEN, supt.
Or. hamilton was of opinion that the Detec-
tive suspected more than he had written. and
That he was still at work on the case. He had
returned the letters received from the Agency.
as he had understood that it was the custom of
the Agency to require their return.
s5o0A DAY.
lie had made special contract with the
Agency and was to pay $500 day whilst the
detective was at work. He had already paid
him near 81, 10000 and felt himself bound to still
pay at this rate If it was shown that he was
still working the case.
a PARTY SUSPECTED
He had several times thought fron, ais User
views with the detective and the letters CT the
principal that they were on the right track At
times he had been led to believe that certain
person did it. THE Committee after discus
sion, decided that it would not be proper for the
DR.. to divulge the name of the suspected party
to the Committee but instructed the clerk to
write to the Pinkerton Agency telling them
that their report was unsatisfactory and de-
mandtng a more detailed one, and lift was not
given that the pay of the detective would cease.
This was done by the clerk.l Subsequently DR..
- @S>~"o>~ 80
told him that the person who it was suspected
had done the poisoning, was hostile to his fH,s)
administration. Witness had, outside of the
acknowledgements some corroborative testimony
to nix suspicion on some particular person OUT
side OF the institution; but only suspicion. No
body has been specially named. but witness
Inferred certain person from the indications
given by the detective.
AS to the PATIENT B. In whose room Mr..
Andrews once discovered a stranger (Mr. Al
mond) DR.. Ii. said that he had regarded B. as
a patient perfectly well for three months.
B. an uncle of DIR. Crockett, and was on
ly waiting for his wife to come by and take
him to Texas; where he now resides, sane
man. largely engaged in business. Almond was
a friend of the Steward. ]. N Mauzy, and had
been placed in BIS room by the Steward as B.
was spending the night with his nephew Dr.
Crockett. Almonds presence in BIS room
was positively against witnesses rule Atten-
dant Andrews first thought it was patient NJ
who had done the poisoning, but afterwards
thought it was patient B. Witness was salts
fed that patient M was never in the dispen-
sary unattended, and Attendant A. was mis-
taken In thinking B. was more in dispensary
than some other patients.
There was no feeling between Attendant An
drews and witness at the time the latter was
having done the poisoning. Thought Andrews
was in good faith endeavoring to locate the au-
thor. when he gave these opinions. Patient B
was not at the Asylum on the evening the pol
son was put in the cups. being down at Dir.
Crocketts. b and Attendant Andrews did
not like each other. Witness had more reason
now than he had at the time of the INQUEST TO
think that Mrs MeAIexander, one of the pa
tients taken sick the day before the poisoning.
was poisoned. She had taken no medicine of
any kind and was taken i'll after eating her
soup at dinner. Nobody else was made sick by
eating the same soup. Cannot conceive how
any patient or attendant could get poison out
of the medical dispensary.
Witness had never known DIR. Butler to make
mistake In putting up prescriptions. DIR. But
Ter is the strictest of all the physicians at the
Asylum and is one of the best druggists that
this, or any other State, has. DIR. B. was not a
drinking man; but. four months before ti~s
poisoning. had been under the influence of
liquor. and had come to him and told him that
If that was excused he would not touch another
drop-a promise that he has scrupulously kept
ever since. Witness saw him the event<SU =
the poisoning while he was preparing the. ISss D.
cine, which was afterwards poisoned, ss.ud he
was perfectly free from all effects ofs5imulants
When, after the poisoning, patt lent c., who
did not like DR.. Butler, aud got his medicine
from DIR. Strain, complained of something
wrong with his medicine, witness took the
medicine and sent it to DR.. Mallet for analysis.
The analysis proved, as witness had said. that
the something wrong was caused by the addi-
ton ofnew, mean whiskey. Had paid Prof.
Mallet $4,000 for the analysis. Witness had an
idea how this whiskey got into the medicine.
Patient c.. who complained that there was
som ethinp "ErOug" about his medicine was at
the time OF his complaining in the habit ofvist-
ing town.
On the morning after the poisoning, witness
examined the prussia acid cyanide of potash
and tincture of aconite bottles, and found in
them eractEy the same amount there had been
before the poisoning. Had calculated carefully
the amount ofaconitlne found in each body and
found that three ounce cup even If filled with
tincture could not possibly have produced that