Year: 1872

The result of the protracted and interest


ing trial of Mrs. Wharton for the murder
of Gen. Ketchum will not, probably, sur
prise many people. The case attracted
great attention by the peculiar mystery


which enveloped the main incidents of Gen.


Ketchum's sickness and death, as well as
by the curious details brought out in the
examination into the principles of toxicolo-
gy. The social position of the accused and
her reputed victim probably had but little
to do with the interest which the case ex-
cited in the public mind. The attempt to
unravel a tangle of testimony, in which
may be hidden terrible crime, has always
b morbid fascination.


The evidence against Mrs. Wharton has
been wholly circumstantial. Rufus Choate,
summing up in the celebrated case of
Albert j. Tirrell, accused of the murder
of his mistress, merely told the jury stories
of innocent men convicted of murder on
circumstantial evidence, until he shook their
faith in all evidence, and made them trem-
BILE at the thought of the network of damn
ing circumstances which might suddenly
surround the most guiltless man. Then he
asked a juryman quietly, "Who saw Albert
J. Trrell kill Maria Bickford ?" This
qutSllOll " dS ltpCdtCu ScNG1dl IiluCS, dS IL
expecting an answer from somebody. With
prodigious emphasis, he answered at last
himself, Nobody" and sat down, his
case being gained for his client. This i'll
quiry, with change only in the person.
ages, has been constantly repeated in the
course of the Wharton trial. Nobody saw
Mrs. Wharton administer poison to
General Ketchun, and when the
learned experts came into court to
apply the ''unerring rules" of science to the
case, lay minds were at once confused and
batfled. There was an irreconcileable dis
agreement among the doctors, and even the
strong circumstantial evidence was clouded
with impeuetrable doubt. Great stress
was laid upon the testimony of Professor
Aiken and the professional group which he
seemed to represent. But, as was shown
in letter from one Of the most distinguish
ed chemists in the country, the moral force
of Prof. Aiken's evidence was seriously
and justly impaired by the facts brought
out on cross-examlnation by want of care
in keeping his records, and trusting his
memory with matters of grave Importance;
and by discrepancy between his testimo-
ny on the final trial and that given before
the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The de-
fense availed themselves of these weak
points in the prosecution, and shook the
fabric Of chemical evidence to the ground.
This gone, there was absolutely nothing
left Of the case against the accused. The
verdict of the jury was anticipated by the
public.


Whatever may be the private, unuttered
opinions of the people as to the guilt OF in
nocence Of one accused Of murder, it is
more than ever clear that it is difficult to
convict,upon circumstantial evidence. And
it must be confessed that, justly or unjust
ly, most people will consider that science
has not cut a dignitied figure in the trial
which has just been finished. Those who
followed the case may not have had all
their suspicious allayed, but they will not
have them strengthened by the evidence of
chemical experts. The verdict Of the jury
is just and right under the circumstances
but the popular belief that great deal of
medical science is purely empirical will be
fortified by the details and result of the
trial.-N. Y. Tribune.