The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-02-14
Mr.. Opie's Report.

at the Western Lunatic Asylum. The re-
port which purports to reflect the conclu-
sions Of the majority is an extraordinary
documcnt-or rather it would be extraor-
| binary had it emanated from any source
other than the Reform legislature of
Virginia. Under other circumstances it
would have been natural to suppose that,
in matter involving so grave RESPONSE
| bility, some attention, at least, would have
been paid to the evidence taken before the
Committee. The fact that such evidence
was taken, gave rise to the presumption
that it's developments would have some
little influence upon the conclusions of the
report. Those, however, who were cred
ulous enough to entertain such an idea
have but to review the testimony and then
read the report, to ascertain that partizanry
brooks no interference with it's precon-
ceiyed plans. 1t will be remembered that
MI. Ople in introducing the resolution for
the appointment of the Committee, boldly
proclaimed that he had neU evidence to
show that ''the poisoning was done thro'
negligence and mismanagement.' 1t was
doubtless upon this statement that the
Committee was appointed. Having been
appointed, and being invested with all
requisite powers, it remained for Mr.. Opie
to make good his assertion or frankly
acknowledge that he had been deceived.
He utterly failed to sustain his statement.
and had not the courage to accept the al
Tentative. The result is report, signed
by.himsef alone ,and which, according to the
statement of Mr.. Mcdonald, had never
been submitted to majority of the Com
mittee in session, which, in the very teeth
OF the evidence taken, undertakes to carry
out purely partizan purpose, and in SO
doing overrides every consideration of JUS
tice and right. We are not surprised that
the name of no other member of the Com
mittee is signed to the document. The
only surprise is that Mr.. Opie should have
permitted such a paper to go out over his
own signature, however embarrassing his
position might have been. Viewed in the
light of the testimony upon which it is
supposed to be based, to our mind it ex-
hibits either want Of capacity to under
stand the effect of evidence, or reckless
determination to disregard the facts proven
that party interests might be conserved.
Let us examine into the assertions of
this extraordinary report. Its opening
sentence admits that Mr.. Optics chief
charge had no foundation in fact. mo
,aeao disclosures were made with regard
to the poisoning is about the only state
ment in the report that the facts sustain.
The next assertion is that ''there is not a
scintilla of evidence to show that the
poisoning was done by parties outside of
the Asylum" The only testimony tend
ing to fix the crime at all was to the effect
that it ,cas committed by parties outside
of the Asylum. The detective declared
that to be his conclusion, and in DIR. Ham
ilton's testimony were the following ques-
tion and answer:
Question by Mr.. Opie.-Have your COM
nunications with Pinkertons, or other in
formation, led you to suspect any certain
| individual I?
Answer.-Yes, sir.
Subsequently DR.. Hamilton stated: 1.-The
detective told me that the person suspected
of the crime was hostile to my admins
tration and that, together with corrobora-
tive evidence, has served to fix the sus-
picion on certain individual" Com
monwealth-Attorney Bell testified that DR..
| To- lion, bp6 70
confide to him, as the law officer of the
city, the name of the suspected party.
Added to this was the positive evidence
| that there had been no aconitine in the
Asylum dispensary during the present ad-
ministration /; that every particle of the
preparations of aconite could be accounted
for and that even if the three ounce mugs,
from which the poison was taken, had been
| filed to the brim with the strongest of
these preparations, that quantity could not
have yielded as much of the alkaloid as
was found in the stomach of one of the
patients. If the evidence proved any
thing, therefore, it clearly established the
fact that the poison had been procured
outside of the Asylum.
But the absurdity of the report reaches
its climax in the declaration that SIN the
opinion Of the Committee the analysis made
by DR.. Mallet is not sufficient to establish
the presence of the alkaloid of aconite or
the quantity said to have been found in
the stomach of Adams. Your
Committee contends that the proposition
calculating the whole amount of poison
from the quantity found in the portion
tested for aconitine] bears absurdity on its
very face, especially as the deaths were
very sudden, and therefore the poison could
not possibly have been distributed through
out the stomach If DR.. Mallet's analysis
is SO unreliable, why not throw out his
testimony altogether ? To be sure, he is a
chemist ofinternational fame, whose whole
adult life has been spent in the practice of
his profession, and who is recognized the
land over as without superior. There is
not chemist in the Union who values his
reputation, who would dare make such a
statement as the members of this Com
mittee have made. They probably know
as much about chemistry as a Hottentot
does about astronomy, and are as well
qualified to criticise Dr.. Mallet's profess
sional acts, as they would be to point out
the exact locality of the north pole, but
these little deficiencies are to be lightly
considered when party interests are to be
promoted. But let us examine the reason
ing OF the Committee on this point They
assume that the portion of the contents of
the stomach OF Adams, chemically exam
lned for aconitine 1.-THE remainder having
been used in testing for other poisons),
contained all of the poison which the pa
tient swallowed. The yield of alkaloid for
this portion of the contents was .543 of a
grain, and the calculation for the whole of |
the.Original contents was .S47 of grain. |
So that the portion examined for aconitine |
must have been considerably more than |
half of the entire contents. In the very
outset the Committees reasoning fails, for |
in addition to the .543 of a grain actually |
found in the contents, there was .026
which the portion of the stomach exam
lned for aconitine yielded. and which de-
monstrated that the poison was not con-
lined to one particular part. 1t should be |
1pap, L