Year: 1878

TIE ACQCIII1L UT Nh. bONDbhuH.


No judicial processes have greater interest for
the general public than trials for poisoning None
give rise to more decided opinion upon side or
the other and yet the general Judgment, so far as
II Is based upon scientific testimony, is not of much
value especially when that testimony is conflicting.
The old proverb wisely forbds the unlearned to de-
eide when the learned disagree. The unlearned.
however, do not heed the injunction, and the ac-
ouittal in jersey City, of the Rev. Mr.. Nosburgh.
charged with the poisoning of his wife, will not put
an end TO bitter social controversy, The verdict,
which saves him from long and ignominious i'm
prigonment, will be acquiesced in by some and dis
approved by Others Unfortunately, the finding
.hich discharges Mr. Yosburgh from custody by no
means establishes tho innocence of everybody about
the lady, or that poisonous doses of antimOny were
not feloniously administered to her. The tests
of DR.. DOremus satisfactorily established the
presence of that metal in the fluids submitted TO
his inspection; but when the prosecution had
proved this, it had merely laid the founda-
ton OF n case against the prisoner,
and was as far as ever from establishing his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Yet, after all, this was
about all the evidence which it had. The medi-
cal testimony neither proved nor disproved any
thing. Though several experts were called to give
evidence as TO the symptoms of poisoning from an
timony. there was only one Of them that had any
practical knowledge on the subject. The exception
was Dr. Hammond, whose wider experience included
n singular in point. But even he seemed unable
to say positively whether the symptoms of Mrs.
Vosburgh were proof that she had taken the poison
This trial will probably strengthen the belief that
medical evidence drawn from symptoms, can rarely
be of any value in poisoning The total disuse
of antimony in the regular practice Of medicine.
for many years past, is also a noteworthy
fact brought out in the trial; our grand
fathers used TO be dosed with the drug
on frequent and slight occasion. Certainly
there was nothing in the testimony of those who
watched the movements Of Mr.. Yosburgb sufficient
10 warrant his convection. They did not promptly
interpose TO save the patent-would they or should
they not have done this If their real belief had been
that the husband was slowly and systematically
poisoning his wife Mr. Sckles now says, with
somewhat tardy indignation, that he has learned
by experience, and If no should see Mr.. Vosburgh
putting stuff into the medicine again he would neck
him and wipe the floor with him." That would be
n perfectly natural course to pursue. 1t is for Mr.
sickles TO explain his singular self-command under
the real and original contingency.


But after careful examination Of the evidence
we arc compelled TO leave il in a mist of uncer-
tainty; and there probably it will remain for all
time to come. The case was remarkable
for the almost entire absence Of positive and con-
elusive testimony. 1t was not proved that
Mrs. Yosburgh was poisoned at all. II it
had been, it was not proved that she
was poisoned by her husband. 1t was
left quite within the bounds Of probability that the
fluids submitted TO Professor DOremus had been
tampered with. The Governments case was little
more than a series of plausible conjectures; and
there was nothing for the jury to do but to acquit
the respondent We do not mean To say that there
was not reasonable cause for the indictment Of the
prisoner but what is sufficient to decide the action
of n grand jury may prove quite insufficient to
secure verdict of guilty.


There was q time when n clergyman charged with
crime had all the advantage of the pTesumptions
raised by his sacred calling. His previous good
character was substantially taken for granted. The
public was not swift to accredit the revolving
hypocrisy implied by the guilt of one who constantly
minstered at the altar of God. Who or what Is
respopsible for the change in the pubic feeling, if
there has been one, do not propose to inquire;
but paradoxical the request may seem, we must
beg the community not to believe clergyman
guilty merely because he is a clergyman. There is
n tendency to be ungenerous and unjust from
which many an honest and pure and conscientious
minister of the gospel may suffer the ruin OF his
nrospects and the desOlatiOn of his earthly lto All
eyes are upon the preacher; all tongues are at





liberty to crlticise him. his slightest variations
from a conventional standard are dissected with
scandalous severity and he whose business it is to
rebuke Others is in his turn, the natural object OF
uncharitable fault-fnding His views, his habits,
his methods Of speech his recreatiOns, his secular
onnions are scrutinized those of no layman are.
So are his clothes, his equpages, his household ar
rangements, the ways of his wife and children. For
him there is peculiar and separate code of morals.
man so watched cannot always escape censure
lie must be more than wise, and shrewder than
shrewd, and freer than mortal was from inhrm-
tiles, always to avoid suspicion or detraction These
are small matters compared with an indictment for
attempt to kill by poisoningj but nobody can tell
the end of busy espionage, or what may come OF
Judging a clergyman's actions as a laymans never
are and never could be without making trouble for
the self-commissoned censor. Perhaps society does
not mean to be unfair II So 1t will not resent this
intimatIon of its mistake.