Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-02-23
HEARD IN DEFENSE
TESTIMONY IN BEHALF OF
ROBERT N. HARPER.

With the close Of the opening statement
by Benjamin S. Minor for the defense in
the Robert n. Harper trial, at the Police
Court Friday afternoon before Judge
Kimball, for the alleged violation of the
pure food and drug act. Dr. Larkin w
Glazebrook. assistant cOroher. was re-
called to the witness stand by agreement
of counsel for both sides to again hear
portions of his former testimony. This
was done at the request of several Of the
DIR. Glazebrook was requested to give
any information he might have regarding
the effect Of acetanilide and other drugs
as given in the analysis of the Harper
compound. upon patients coming under his
observation.
He stated in response that one of his
patients was addicted to the use of such d
combination. but he was not permitted tG
say whether 1t was the Harper remedy
or not. He was cross-examined by the
defense at some length regarding what
the medical profession regarded as fata
doses of acetanilide and antipyrine. The
witness said that fatal results from the
drugs varied in great degree; that possibly
a comparatively small dose might kill q
man suffering from heart or kidney trou.
BILE, while exceptionally large doses could
juring him in the least.
The assistant corOnerS croSS-eXamina
ton indicated the full line of one side OF
the defense's case. in that in only ex-
cepttonal cases acetanilide and antipyrine
were fatal. and then in doses in proper
found in the Harper remedy.
DR.. Rays Testimony.
Following DR.. Glazebrool1 the first wit.
ness for the defense. DR.. Philip S. Roy
was called by the attorneys for the de-
Tense. DR.. Roy III qualifying himself as
an expert gave his medical education
record and stated that he had been a
practitioner in Washington for the past
eighteen years. In answer to questions by
counsel as to his opinion of the Harper
headache remedy DR.. Roy said he was
convinced it was all that was claimed fol
it: that it was not only a cure for head
ache. but food for the brain.
He stated that the compound was harm
less. as the only ingredient in it, acetan-
Hide, upon which the prosecution largely
rests it's case. because of it's poisonous
qualities. was present only in the average
prescription quantities. and not sufficient
to be menace to human life, or even a
destroyer of the human tissues.
The witness. in explaining the food
qualities Of the remedy. stated they were
principally contained in the alcohol and
the bromide OF the former. the alcohol
produced heat in quantities to give nour-
ishment of the variety described by pre-
scribing physicians. and was food to the
human frame in the most literal sense.
The witness added that all drugs. of
no matter what sort, if taken in too large
quantities. are, of course, a menace and
destroyer to tissues.
There was extensive testimony relative
to the difference of cure and RELIEF, as to
curing or relieving symptom or the
cause of symptom. The words curing or
relieving of a headache whether it be a
symptom or otherwise were termed synon-
ymous by the witness. At the close Of
DR.. Rays direct testimony the court ad-
journed the case until Tuesday.
With the opening of the defense it is
understood evidence will be introduced to
show that the dangerous drugs of the
remedy are in 1t in such small proper
ton that it would be impossible to suffer
serious results from the use Of It, In
addition to a large number of physicians
who will. it is said. testify to the harm
lessness of the compound. the defense will
also call chemists and pharmacologist
in an effort to refute similar testimony
already offered by the prosecution.