The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-09-15

the entire thickness of the stomach wall
and extending on all sides about one and
one-half to two inches. The same is true
of the wound of exit of the bullet on the
posterior wall of the stomach, which was
also still closed by sutures in the center
of an extensive area of necrosis Inc
further passage of the bullet through the
soft tissues of the back where 1t became
imbedded was also surrounded by nee
rotic tissue. These different necfotic
areas all had the same appearance as to
time of duration-that is, they were due
to the same influence acting about the
same time. All these conditions lead me
to believe that there has been an intiu-
ence exerted by the passing bullet
through these tissues entirely dlsSlmilar
to that influence exerted by an ordinary
missile. In this case there was not the
appearance of a single effort at natural
repair at any point along the track of
the ball.
1.-The influence 1 speak of might be eth
er bacterial-the microbe being carried In
on the bullet and giving rise to growth
of bacteria in the abdominal cavity with
resulting peritonitis and possible abscess,
or in the case of some rare germs, to ne
crosis of tissue. From archaeological OBJ
servations made thus far this does not
seem to be the case. There was no peri
tonitis or pus formation at any point
within the abdominal cavity, only the
gangrenouS influence from the tSIet,
which from these facts 1 believe to have
been due to some possible organic poison
placed on the bullet. Further bacteriolog
ical tests are in process, and possibly
germ capable of giving rise to this gan
grenous condition of tissues may be
found. But the presence of gangrene only
at points of the passage of the bullet and
the length of time-Seven dayS-required
for the necrotic or gangrenous changes
rather convince me that it is not bac
terial influence, but must be due to some
organic poison.
TESTS were made of gangrenouS mate
rial when the stitches in the wound were
removed and the wound re-dressed. They
have not shown as yet the presence of a
gangrene producing rganism-leading in
ferentially to the opinion that the bullet
was coated with some poisonous sub
stance
DR.. Roswell Park, when asked as to the
likelihood of the now much-talked-of bull
let being poisoned before 1T crashed into
the body of the president, was somewhat
categorical in declaring his position. In
response to questions put by a reporter,
he said
81 do not think that the bullet was
poisoned
How, then, do you explain the gan
of the bullet as outlined in the official
statement of the doctors?' was asked.
That hypothesis is not workable. 1t
can be stated very simply. I fail to sub
scribe to the theory that the bullet was
poisoned for the simple reason that I have
often seen bullet wounds similar to those
sustained by the president, and I have
seen conditions similar to those which re-
suited in the presidents death in cases
where no question of poisoned bullets
was raised. I do not share the belief of
those who feel that the bullet was pois-
oned."
DR.. Herman Mynter, another Of the ply
sicians who was in attendance upon the
president, ridiculed the idea that the bull
let was poisoned. He said: 81 have never
heard of a bullet being poisoned. 1 do
not see how bullet could be poisoned
effectively. I may add, however, if'-and
great emphasis was laid on the word-'ff
bullet could be poisoned it is safe, per-
haps, to say that it might produce con-
ditions similar to those found in the case
of the president. Doesn't that make my
position elear?'