The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1886-01-10

The trial of druggist Am Ende did un-
doubleday establish the fact that the de-
PENDANT was not guilty Of msnslaughter.
This result was, perhaps, of some import
ance to Am Ende. But there was another
fact, or rather series Of facts established
by the trial that was of infinitely more i'm
portance to the general public. We refer
OF course to DIR. Quimby's metaphysical
deliverances on the subject of his dog. 1t
is scarcely necessary for us 10 introduce
DR.. Quimby to our readers. Wherever
two or three of the brethren are gathered
together in an indignation meeting; when
ever railroad corporation is to be torn
asunder. paralysed and altogether done
for; whenever the demon of rum is to be
denounced and exercised; whenever an
offensive garbage box or broken sewer is
to be elevated to the dignity of Public
Grievance, then and there the doctor may
be found with maDtling name and lungs
that mock the utmost frenzy Of the cal
hope. For some reason this very worthy
man was called as witness for the de-
fence to prove that Am Eude was tenn
porarily insane when he made up the
fatal prescription. He got along very
well with the direct examination, but
when he fell into the clutches of Prose
cutor Winfield he appeared to be more of
an Exhibit than an expert. The con-
troversy between the learned doctor and
we hope we may say it inoffensively-the
equally learned lawyer was very amusing
if not very Instructive. After wading
through the quicksands of metaphysical
erudition for some time, time the ex-
animation of the witness proceeded-in this
style
s'Oan brutes analyze mentally 2" he asked.
sNo: birds build their nests now the same az
they did q thousand years ago."
s'Can't dog analyze in his mind? Can't your
dog Tell you from another man :"
Sometimes and sometimes not
"Csn't he smell you and say at once that's DR..
Qnimbys"
nNo. sir"
1t will be seen then that from the doctors
testimony we may extract these two main
facts:
LIST. That sometimes the doctors dog
could not tell him from another man.
ed. That the doctors dog can't recog-
n:ze him by scent.
Now it seems to us that if this first
proposition is correct there must be some
thing wrong with the doctors dog. A dog
that can't lell the doctor from an ordinary
mortal must have been sleeping out late
the night before or must be clean daft An
animal SO utterly bereft of perception
would be liable to tackle locomotive
under the impression that it was cat
Indeed we think better of the doctor than
to accept his assertion, and we also think
better of the average dog. For how can
sBe conceive that any faithful brute that
had ever become familiar with the philan-
sthropic nhysiognomy OF the doctor could
ever forget it. Most dogs can tell bone
x9hen they see it. They ought to be able
TO iell Qu,mby. AS to the doctors
2 SECOND prCpoSitioh tnat us uos Eau
recognize him ly sense Of smell, we as
sumo that it must be true. The doctors
breath is above suspicion 1t is innocent
Of The aroma of the fiery cup and guileless
of The stencil of tobacco. There is much
doubt in the public mind as TO whether
The acquittal Of Mr.. Am Ende is chiefly
due to his own excellent character or to
the eloqueDce of Brother Hoffman or TO
she skill of Brother Besson Or to the SUI
perhuman intelligence of the jury or to
the doctor and his dog. For ourselves we
s,uhesitatiugly pronounce in favor Of the
doctor and his dog.