The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-03-15
DIR. WILLIAMS WRITES
AS TO HIS ACQu|TTAL
Desires Public TO More Fully Under
stand How Baseless Were the
Charges Against Him.
TELLS STORY OF HIS CASE.
Charges Were Dismissed on Tcsti-
mony of Prosecution Witnesses, Al
though Many Physicians We're
Ready to Testify On His Behalf.

Toward the close of the year 1914
the Richmond police put forth efforts
Of a creditable nature to stamp GU.
the unlawful sale and use of habit
forming drugs.
During this ca mpaign warrant
was sworn out against a physician of
the highest professional standing, who
for many years. had been treating
with marked success the unfortu-
nate victims OF the drug habit.
This physician. DR. J. w Williams.
an acknowledges expert In this
branch of the medical profession. was
charged with prescribing habit form
ing drugs In unlawful quantities At
the time that the warrant was sworn
out the newspa pers of the city car
ried stories based largely on the state
ments and opinions Of the police rela =
tive to the matter. and Of nature
hurtfui In the reputation Of the ac-
cused physician.
The Richmond Virginian. however.
along with its first story in connec-
ton with the warrant against DIR. Will
liams, carried prominently In its col
umns his own signed statement indi-
eating that the charges were unjust
and that ne would. when brought to
trial, he promptly acquitted.
This was exa city what occurred. So
DR. Williams was acquitted ON the te.-
timany of the witnesses summoned
for the prosecution. although uumer-
Gus physicians of the highest per-
sonal and professional standing were
present ready 20 testify both as to
his methods and his standing, both
as a man and As physician.
Notwithstanding his prompt acquit-
tai. DIR. Williams has suffered in his
professional work. he states. and. in
order that the public may be more
fully advised ~ tn his case and his
record as "a nan and physician, he
requests The Nirginian to reprint tie
following communication which was
addressed To and recently printed In
another Richmond newspaper:
DIR. Williams Communication.
In your issue of December 20.
1914 you published an article relating
to my arrest upon the charge OF an
lawfully dispensing prescriptions for
ha oit~t0rming drugs. III violation OF
the penal laws of the State. This
article, based exclusively upon state
ments alleged to have been made by
the police, was OF such "a nature as
To greatly and widely iniure me. both
as IL man and physician l was re-
siding in Richmond. and either at my
office or my home could have been
seen by your reporter If he had de-
sired from me a statement OF the real
facts in the matter. No opportunity.
however, was given me TO state these.
aud as consequence an article great
ly damaging WAS published. 4 very
brief investigation would have shown
10 the reporter that ! was man OF
standing. both as physician and AS
a citizen. and from that standpoint
alone that / was not guilty of the
practices charged against me. II
would also have appeared that very
large number of prescription appear
ing To- have been given by me We're
forperies. and that the officers who
arrested me were sufficiently ac-
quainted with 6ny signature to know
that they wert forgeries
1T would also have appeared that
OF the remaining prescriptions all
were given - five or six confirmed
drug users. who were under my srea,-
ment. though NOT then regularly In
hospitals because OF their ina ability Ia
pay the hospital fees.
1T would also have appeared that
in no instance were the prescriptions
given by me for amounts excessive
from the standpoint of i.abitual users
of the drug In addition To this l
have no hesitation in saying that /
would have been able TO have salts
fled any impartial Investigation OF my
standing in the medical profession
by reference to such men as DR. Stu
art Mcclure Or. j. Allison Hodges.
Coroner William II, Taylor. DR.. c. A.
Bryce, DR. A. e. thurman. DIR. Boyce