'\


DISCUSSION
f
CHARGES PREFERRED IN THE DUGAN CONTROVERSY,!
«

BEING A
REPLY
TO A PUBLICATION OF DR. FRANKLIN KNOX,
§

I
I
"A VINDICATION OF  CHARACTER, &C."   »
«

BY S. W. ADREON, M.D.


            St. Corns:    ><6
T. W. USTICK, PRINTER, 57 MAIN STREET,
r


4 
 
A
DISCUSSION
CHARGES PREFERRED IN THE DUGAN CONTROVERSY
BEING A
REPLY
TO A PUBLICATION OF DR. FRANKLIN KNOX,
                 ENTITLED,

"A VINDICATION OF  CHARACTER, &c.»

   /

         BY S. W. ADREON, M.D.




               %l. Coma:  .
   T. W. USTICK,  PRINTER,  57 MAIN STREET,
1846. 
 
: ^TRODUCTION.
  A proper  sense  of what is due to public opinion, to my own
character,  and to those who have innocently been involved in the
gross attacks of my foes, calls  upon me to assume  the  onus of
defence, and, if possible,  place  the  seal of silence on  slanderous
tongues.  This, I own, is almost a forlorn hope;  for the words of
the traducer  multiply by opposition,  and malice is ever self-gene-
rative  in the heart of a defeated and  vindictive  foe.  Writhing
under  the  disgrace reaped by their agency in the late  suit of Mary
Dugan vs. Beaumont  and Adreon, my former assailants have, since
the  trial,  kept up, by publications, a  succession  of assaults  on
Doctors Beaumont, Reyburn and myself; by what motive impelled,
cannot be conceived, beyond that of gratifying their defeated malice,
and satisfying their implacable revenge.  I have a dislike to  contro-
versy of any kind, more particularly when  it involves professional
character, and is kept up by a disgraceful engagement in personal-
ities: I  have  more  than a dislike to  it when my antagonist is my
avowed  enemy.  With such  an  opponent one  acts wisely not to
harbor a captious spirit; for be the merits of the dispute  what they
may, the sense of having made an attack to  reap defeat, is a motive
with the disputant to repeat his  assault, and each succeeding word
is sure to be more bitter than those which preceded  it.
  It is to silence the  tongue of such  a malignant  traducer, that I
now appeal to my readers. 
■;'.£'-
,'(j 
TO  THE  PUBLIC.
  Dr, Knox having put forth an " Extra," as he states, through a " de-
cent self respect," implying, of course, that if certain charges against
him be  true, he would have forfeited even this—I hereby proceed to
give the proofs by which those charges are sustained.  A critic tells of
a literary man ,who felt himself under the necessity of occasionally going
abroad  to preserve his self respect; and if the Dr. be of the same sensi-
tive class as the hero of the critic's anecdote, I fear that he will only be
able to preserve his self dignity by enjoying change of air.
  Referring to the late statement made by Dr. Knox, in his publication
relative to Mary Dugan's disease in 1840, and comparing it with his
sworn testimony, it would appear that the scrupulous Dr. recognizes
in his moral code two kinds of truth: one applicable to the solemn ends
of justice, and circumscribed by the obligations of an oath—the other
to be employed in the ordinary affairs of life, admitting of the greatest
latitude in defining facts, and to be governed by the circumstances of
the occasion.  The first to be  used in Courts of Justice, where the
penalty of false swearing would consign him to a change of residence.
The second to  be applied where a professional  brother's character is
to be attacked, and where it is necessary to sustain an accusation by
false and malicious statements.  In illustration of the foregoing, I will
quote Dr. Knox's recent statements, and compare them with his sworn
testimony.
  " I examined Mrs. Dugan carefully," says Dr. Knox in his late pub-
lication,  " Dr.  White standing by my side at the time.   There was one
clear distinct opening into the bowel, its orifice about in the usual situa-
tion of' the right external abdominal ring,' and running upwards and
backwards in the direction of the inguinal canal, about an inch or an
inch and a half; from which the matter  usually found in the smaller
intestines was discharging.   There  was no pus or other admixture
with the matter usually found  in the bowels, and no other  opening,
sinuosity or swelling, except a very slight one around the edges of the
orifice before mentioned ; and no appearance of gangrene, or the extensive '
sloughing, which it appears afterwards took place,  from the testimony of
witnesses for the defence on the trial.
  " On questioning her as to the opening, she said it had been made by
the lancet of her attending physician.  I asked her when the tumor,
which had been lanced, first appeared; she  said ' about seven  years
before;  that it had gradually enlarged since that time, and had given  '
her much trouble; that it was usually soft, and, by pressing upon it, it
readily disappeared; but that sometimes it became hard andimmova-
ble, and then she suffered intense pain with it;  that she had sometimes
been obliged to call a physician to obtain relief."'
  Now,  this story of Dr. Knox's differs materially from his evidence
on  the  trial, and  no  doubt has  its  origin  in  the  necessities of the
occasion.  Having discovered that his medical character is  at stake, 
6
and that some necessary links in the chain of testimony were want-
ing, to make out a clear case against those he was sworn to persecute,
he adroitly extemporizes the necessary falsehoods  wherewith to till
up the chasm in the evidence against them.
  As a witness in the case of  Mary Dugan versus Beaumont  & Ad-
reon, Dr. Knox was sworn to tell the  whole truth, and nothing more
or less than  the truth.   The grounds on  which any physician forms
his opinions  of disease  are his own observation and the statements of
the patient;  Yet, when on the witness's stand, Dr. K. did not refer to
several important facts now brought forth by him, and as these facts
were  admissible testimony, yet then unacknowledged  by him, we
must conclude they are his after-thoughts, which he now attempts to
palm off as truths.  The Dr. has been so long dealing in such coinage,
that I have no doubt he manufactures facts with great facility.   He
made  no admission  of  ever having heard the previous history of her
disease from the patient, and this history was called up in his  exami-
nation.  Mrs. Bardo, (the daughter of Mrs. Dugan.) on  her examina-
tion, gave the following history of her mother's symptoms before  the
operation  of 1840:  " She had complained of her side for several years,
and had  cramp colics.  A  swelling  would often arise there.  At
times  it would be quite large, and  could be put back.   When plain-
tiff would work  hard, or lift, it would bulge out, and leitness had often
rubbed it to get it back, when it would go back with a gurgling noise"
This testimony of Mrs. Bardo does not substantially or medically dif-
fer from the present statement of Dr. Knox, yet, when he was ques-
tioned in  regard to it, on the trial, he did not corroborate it, or ac-
knowledge that he had ever heard it before.  He testifies "Mrs. Bardd's
statement (which he had heard in court) described hernia, but would
not say it was hernia  from that testimony alone, but would want to
know  it from personal  examination, or from a person capable of
deciding.   No  other  disease I know of a?iswers the  description."
Now I would ask any candid  reader, if the present statement of Dr.
Knox had ever been given him by the patient, as he avers, whether he
would not have so  stated in the court, and have come to definite con*
elusions on the case.   With such a statement made to him, and with
the opportunity of examining the patient, any intelligent physician
would have asserted the disease was hernia, but the following quotations
from his testimony  before the court will show how wide  of any  such
conclusion were Dr. Knox's views, and how contradictory of his pre-
sent statement was his sworn testimony :
  " From what witness saw, could not say the patient had hernia at
that time," (April, 1840.)
  " When witness  first saw the patient, does not know she had  her-
nia.   No one could tell from an examination of the opening whether
it was from a hernial sac or an inflamed caecum."   (Page 534, May
No. St. Louis Med. & Surg. Journal.)
  if No one could tell, from the appearance, whether  intestine ha
been there in the form of hernia and been cut, or not."   (Page 535
ibid.)
  " Witness never saw an ulcer, that opened without being cut, that
presented  the appearance of this."  (Page 534, ibid-) 
A
                                 I

   " Witness did not probe .it."   (Page 533, ibid.)
   This testimony is  convincing that Dr. Knox had hot received  any
 history of her  disease from the patient, that would lead him to an
 opinion on her case.   He could not say it was hernia, or even that the
 orifice was an incision, and he did not probe it; yet he now gives both
 the depth and  direction ef  the opening.   The  Dr. has  made  two
 statements of the case of  Mrs. Dugan, diametrically opposed to each
 other.  Now  which of these statements is to  be believed?   I am
 inclined to place more reliance upon his sworn testimony.   The  fear
 of consequences restrained him from stating, what, under other circum-
 stances, he would  have done.  There are men who do not scruple to
 make any statement, no matter how foreign to truth, provided there is
 no attendant legal liability.  The Dr., it appears, is one  of this class.
   Dr. Knox cannot  plead that his testimony is  mis-reported,  as he
 corrected it before it went to press.   Moreover, I compare his present
 statement, with  two  sets of  notes of testimony of the trial, taken by
 Messrs. Polk and Whitelsey.  The Dr.'s ignorance in the premises is
 shown by his admission on oath—"that he knew nothing worth men-
 tioning of perforative ulceration of the caecum."   He  was truly an
 admirable consultant on a disease of which he knew nothing.
   Now, I will quote Di\ White's  contradiction of Dr. Knox, given on
 oath, and it will be remembered Drs.  White and Knox visited the
 patient at the same time:—"There was a lesion of  the integuments 14
.inches long; whether resulting from sloughing or a cutting instru-
 ment, witness cannot "say.   The orifice was sloughing  and irregular.
 There were two openings, one over the crural  arch, the other over
 the inguinal canal.   There had been sloughing when witness first
 saw the case."   Here is a positive contradiction of Dr. Knox's assertions.
 Dr.  K. says there was but one opening in  the  groin—Dr. White says
 two.   Dr. Knox says there had been no sloughing—Dr. White asserts
 the contrary.  That Dr. White was more willing to tell the truth, on
 some points, than  Dr. K., may  be inferred from  further statements
 made  by  him on the  trial:—"Witness did not ascertain the  depth of
 the incision—did not probe it."   "Witness doesxnot know positively
 that there was  hernia in April, 1840, but infers there was."  In the
 face of  his own and Dr. White's sworn testimony, Dr. Knox pretends
 to o-ive the depth and direction  of  the incision, though he acknowl-
 edges that he did not  probe  it.   How could he tell all this except by
 probing ?   I suppose by his usual method—guessing.  Dr. Knox may
 explain, quibble, or equivocate, as he pleases;  he cannot evade  these
 contradictions  of himself, by himself and  Dr. White.  If he tell  the
 truth now, he  violated his  oath at the trial; for  he did not  then  tell
 many important circumstances which he now asserts  he knew, and
 neither Dr. White nor Dr. K. mentioned on the witness-stand, having
 heard the  previous symptoms of her disease from the patient.
   This concludes all that I  have to say, at present, on the medical por-
 tion of this controversy.  1  shall now discuss the ethical points at issue
 with Dr. Knox, previous to which, let me state what I know of Mary
 Dugan's case.
   In April, 1840, I was called to visit a poor woman—Mary Dugan—
 then living in the garret, or loft, of a one-story frame house, at the corner 
8
of Florida and Main Streets, near the Mound.   She was in the utmost
destitution;  every thing around  her betokening-  the most  squalid
poverty and wretchedness.  My services were  solicited, and cheerfully
given as a charity; my  own purse supplied  some of her necessary
wants during her siskness,  and her neighbors  also assisted her.   Ber
health, from her own account, ,had been very precarious for several
years ; and her appearance  indicated the prolonged ravages of chronic
disease.  I attended her for several weeks, and, with her concurrence,
then temporarily suspended my visits, as she was recovering.   In a
few days, Mrs. Dugan  again sent for me; and, as before, I  rendered
her every attention.  Her symptoms  were of  a somewhat uncommon
character;  but to  ensure her every chance of recovery, to  clear  up
whatever doubts existed in  my own  mind in relation to her disease, I
solicited the counsel of Drs. Beaumont and Sykes, who were admitted
to be the highest surgical authority in the city.  Their services were
rendered, through  courtesy to me, and charity to the patient.  Her
evident poverty solicited their interest, and every attention was given
her by them.  At this period of her illness, on making my usual visit
one morning, I learned my  patient had been visited by Drs. White and
Knox,who had endeavored to prejudice me with the patient, condemning
my  treatment;  alarming my patient, and wished  to induce her to
discharge me, &c.  Incensed at this unjust and unwarrantable inter-
ference, (for Mrs. Dugan never acknowledged having sent  for  these
physicians,) I  offered lo leave  the  case, if my patient felt any want of*
confidence in me, or wished to place herself under  the  care of any
other person or persons, and stated that  I should certainly retire from
the case if  I was interfered  with in future.
   Mrs. Dugan begged me,  in the most earnest manner,- not to leave her,
stating that she had unbounded confidence in my skill;  was  grateful
for my attention, and with  tears in her eyes  solicited me  to continue
my  visits, "and not to mind what those fellows said or did."  I had
just grounds  for complaining of this interference, for it  was counte-
nanced by some persons around  her, who might have felt authorized
to interfere to my prejudice, because they were her friends, but  noe
mine.
   Previous to this time, I had (as I before stated,) induced Drs. Beau-
mont and Sykes to give her the benefit  of their  opinions.  I had thus
taken every precaution  to guard  against any error  of  judgment in
 relation  to. her disease; had done as  much as was required of  me in
 any case, and really more  than in reason and charity could have been
 expected of me ; and the reward reaped for these services was defama-
 tion, clamor, and excitement, propagated by those who had attempted
 to interfere in my case.  In order to put down the  slanderous  reports
 against  me, in addition to those already invited,  I requested Drs.
 Carpenter,  Brown, and Reyburn, to visit the patient, and from their own
 examinations, form  an unbiassed opinion of her disease.  All of these
 gentlemen coincided in the opinion that the disease was perforative
 ulceration of the intestines, with an abscess pointing externally.  Dr.
 Sykes saw the patient in the earliest stage of the disease, before any
 external local  disorganization  appeared; at  a period when, if  hernia
  were present, it could with certainty have been distinguished.   Thus7 
9
with Dr. Sykes and myself alone, opposed to Drs. White and Knox,
there is, at least, a balance of medical testimony in relation to her dis-
ease.  But Dr. Beaumont also saw the case before Dr. Knox,  and Drs.
Carpenter and Brown saw it about the same time.  All concur in opinion
that there was not hernia.  Reflecting, then, on the period of the case,
when those who  holdthe  opposite opinion examined the patient, and
bearing in mind  theconcurrence  of numbers against them,  the testi-
mony is conclusive that no hernia existed.
   Drs. Beaumont,  Carpenter, Brown, Sykes, and Reyburri, also re-
ceived from the patient the representations I have  made of  the un-
professional and  ungentlemanly course pursued  by Drs.  White and
Knox in the case; and in quoting them as endorsers of the truth of the
charges I  have brought,  1 do it with their full and  acknowledged
authority.
   The right of a physician to hold an opposing  opinion, I do not call
in  question ; but when such  opinion is made  the  ground  of public
abuse, excitement, defamation, and persecution ;  when  the  results of
opinion  are thus carried  beyond all professional and  social duty, it
becomes properly the subject of condemnation and rebuke.   The case
of Mrs. Dugan was a charity case;  I had done  for her all that  my
professional duty and humanity required, all that human judgment
could  suggest;  all  that the  best professional aid  could effect, was
gratuitously obtained for her, and even if there were an error commit-
ted in  the case, I had done every thing to avoid it, so that I was
not morally or professionally delinquent, or deserving of  the bitter
censures heaped on me.
   So bitter was the malignity of my  persecutors, that they sought an
indictment against me  before the grand jury, in 1840, and again in
 1844.   Mrs. Dugan had not, at the former  period,  any part in  the
prosecution.  She was then confined to her bed, daily attended by me—
 seemed  to be  grateful  for  my  services, and my warmest  advocate
 against my slanderers.  I can only suspect, then, to whose malignity
 this attempt at indictment was owing.  I attended Mrs. Dugan until
 July, 1840, when she voluntarily left the city, quite well, and has been
 since, (as  shown in the testimony on the trial) in as perfect  a state of
 health as circumstances would admit, or human agency could effect.
    In the Spring of 1844, Mrs. Dugan returned  to this city, when the
 agitation of her case was renewed, the long dormant slanders revived,
 and suit entered against Dr. Beaumont and  myself—damages laid at
 $10,000.  The legal process was served on us in  Autumn, 1844, when
 she was  under the protection  of those who had interfered  with her
 when under  my charge in 1840; and my  professional persecutors
 sought to  drum up witnesses against me, among physicians  specially
 invited to see her.  In this last  object, however,  there was a  complete
 failure.   The woman had been  rehearsed in the tale she was to tell,
 but the directing power in the scene was recognized, aud  the well
 composed dialogue failed of its  intended convictions.  That the wo-
 man is a maligner, disgustingly exaggerating  the real state of her
 disease, I assert, and can prove.   Physicians who have  seen  her, bear
 me out in this charge ; and the officer who served the summons at her
 dwelling, represented to me  that she  appeared to be in good health. 
10
Certain it is, that though laboring under occasional attacks, as she was
also before 1810, her health now is better than when I first called to
visit her.  After nearly  two years' threatening and prepaiation for the
event, the trial came on in April last, and occupied  nearly a week.
All that could be drummed up by my enemies, in the shape of truth
or falsehood, was by them used; able counsel conducted  the prosecu-
tion, and argued the case;  every thing that could  be said or done to
procure  conviction was employed;--the  result  was  an  honorable
acquittal.
  It would have been supposed  that the  mortification  of a public
trial would have satisfied and silenced my accusers; but no, the cup
of their  malice was not  exhausted; its dregs yet fermented to acid;
defeat but the more embittered my enemies, as I was not yet hunted
to the death.   The trial over, persecution has followed me in the pub-
lication  of slanders, sustained  by  falsification, perjury, and scurrility,
as clearly and unanswerably exposed in the late  publication by Dr.
Reyburn.   Every  art by  which false impressions could be created,
every issue or assertion by which  prejudice could  be generated, have
been used; the smallest points have been amplified and  wire-drawn;
facts have been fraudulently perverted, and witnesses have been sub-
orned ao-ainst me.   As  the degraded witnesses had not  sworn away
my character on the trial, they re-appeared in pamphlet, with new
testimony, (which, though relevant and admissible on the trial, they
dared not then assert,) as if bent on swearing without mercy  and
without stint, so that the gratification of my pursuers'  hatred and re-
venue was attained.  These base attempts on others" characters  have
recoiled on the instigators, and they have reaped the disgrace due such
infamous, cowardly, relentless, vindictive falsifiers.  Thus, for more
than six years, I have been subjected to a most relentless persecution,
growing out of the unprofessional  interference with  my patient in
1840.  Those then associated with me in the case  have shared in my
oppression, for rendering charitable aid to a degraded, perjured pauper,
who has been the tool of others' malice, seduced by the glittering  bait
of $10,000 damages.
  This is the history of Dr. Beaumont's and my connexion with Mary
Dugan's case, and it will enable my readers to understand the position
of all parties in the issues  involved.
   I will now take up  the other  portions  of  Dr. Knox's  pamphlet.
Dr. K. speaks  of  " mysterious whisperings"  against him without
foundation, and were you  to believe all he says, he is charity's sweet
self, and never in his innocent life did anything to harm any mortal
being.  You could never suspect, from his words, that  he combines
within himself aught than the mild qualities of the lamb, with a con-
siderable touch of the dove, and not a dash of  the crocodile,  or the
least possible suggestion of the very mildest seasoning of the serpent.
Oh! no, the  Dr. is quite  amiable always; a  jury  of twelve  men,
sworn to do  it, could not try his temper; and  all  the milk of human
kindness in his bosom has afforded others but the very richest cream.
   Now every physician then  resident  in  St. Louis,  knows, that at
the time of  the alleged  mal-practice in Mary Dugan's case, in 1840,
thecase was  talked of  as having been  improperly treated,  and, I 
11
would ask, who endeavored to establish and circulate this impression ?
Certainly not the attending and consulting physicians, whose charac-
ters must suffer by such a course :  they alone, it is presumed, would
consider themselves entitled to judge of the treatment;  none others
were cognizant of any of the circumstances of the case, except Drs.
White and Knox, and  their names, as  authors  and retailers of the
slander, have been repeatedly given up to me.
  Dr. Knox next proceeds to detail the reasoning  Mr. Light used, to
induce Dr. Knox to accompany Dr. White to my case, and if bis as-
sertions of Mr.  L.'s conduct be true, then is  Mr.  L. very  unfit for
his sacred calling, and this I will proceed to  show, although, as Dr.
Knox implies, we are of the same religious belief.   It  appears  from
Dr. Knox, that Mr. Light stated his impressions, that my leaving the
case proceeded from an idea on my part that " I could not benefit the
woman, and  because she icas unable to pay for my  visits."   Will Mr.
L. tell me upon what circumstance of my life he founded the impres-
sion of such sordidness on my  part?  The woman herself, in ker affi-
davit to Dr. White, avers  a  contrary course of  conduct, and  upon
what precept in that volume, which  bis ministry  should  make the
text book of life, he found himself justified in violating that mandate,
"judge not  that you shall not be judged," or that threat, "in  what
measure thou shalt mete out to others, shall it be meted out to you."
With all the uncharitable impressions of my motives, which Dr. Knox
asserts Mr. L. raised in his own mind, and infused into  the minds  of
others, he was  most  certainly  a fit person to prepare Mrs. Dugan to
appear before that Judge, whose great precept is universal charity.
If Mr. L.  only succeeded in  infusing into her  mind the impressions
which Dr. K. asserts  he gave  him, I must  say,  that in my humble
opinion, it is an  instance  of  "the blind leading the blind," and  his
conduct at the  bed-side of  her he considered the dying, that of a fo-
menterof rash judgment, uncharitableness and vjndictiveness.
   According to Dr. Knox's further showing, both Mr. L. and Dr. K.
attributed to the woman far more vindictive feelings than her conduct
proved; or, to view it in a common-sense light, if they speak  truly
of the woman's expressions at the time, they must have been con-
vinced she was a hypocrite.   Dr. K. says Mr. Light told  him " that
the woman would not see him [myself] again, at any rate,—that she
thought he [I] had inflicted an irreparable injury  upon her, and she
would not have me visit her again."  Dr. K. further asserts that the
woman said  to him,  "No, he [Dr. Adreon] shall never come into the
house whilst I live.   He has ruined me, and I will never have him if
I have no physician, or words to  that effect."  By Dr. Knox's and
Mr. Tabor's own showing, I resumed the case the  next morning, and
no further ill-feeling on the woman's part, up to the time she return-
ed to the  city,  three years after, is even attempted to  be proved  by
any purty.  Does not this go far to show, that with " the croaking of
these birds  of ill  omen,"  the  ill-feeling subsided.  Dr. Beaumont,
whom even Dr. Knox  allows  character for veracity, substantiates
this in his letter published by Dr. Reyburn.   The  re-kindling of her
wrath and spirit of revenge is fully accounted for by the holding out
of a hope  for $1.0,000 damages, and  as "to the victors belong the 
12
spoils," a prospect of division may probably account for the share of
others in the late trial.
   Dr. Knox shows a want of justice on the part of Mr. Light, in his
refusing to inform me of the. state of affairs,  the propriety of doing
which Dr. K., it seems, suggested to Mr. L.  These questions of Mr.
Light's  conduct must be  settled between Dr. K. and Mr. L.   I was
not aware  of these circumstances until the publication of the late pa-
per, which also gave me  the first  information of Mr. Light's denial
of the interview, as spoken of by Dr. Reyburn, in which Mr. L. apol-
ogized.   Mr. William Smith, one of the witnesses, is dead long since,
but Drs. Beaumont and  Sykes will  substantiate my assertion, that
Dr. Reyburn's statement is perfectly correct.
   Dr. K«iox further states that he told Mr. Light he "did not wish to
visit the case, because Dr. Adreon had for a good while been constant-
ly slandering, and abusing me on all occasions.  [Cry here.]   I had
reason to believe he would endeavor to misrepresent and injure  me
if I had anything  to do  with it, and therefore I wished him to pro-
cure some other person."   This plaintive  description of Dr. Knox's
sufferings reminds me forcibly of the fat boy, in Pickwick, giving Miss
Wardel the account of  Mr. Tupman's kissing Miss Arabella: " And
did she allow it?" says the affrighted and indignant spinster.  " Why
yes,"  says the fat boy," she likes it."   Why yes, the amiable and long-
suffering Dr.  "likes it."   There seems a  strange fatality in the fact,
that the two physicians who have been so positive in their  assertions
of the mal-praxis, should, from their own showing, have actually been
the victims of their yielding dispositions, and should, in spite of their
better judgment, have been forced to take charge of my case, although
they knew (judging, I presume, from what  would be their own course
in similar circumstances,) that I would misrepresent and injure them.
By Dr.  White's confessions, he  has  been  suffering slow martyrdom
from his brother physicians for  the  last 14 years, and  Dr. Knox's
sufferings from me, " for  a good while," are pathetically described on
page 4 of the Extra. I was really affected  by the  recital,  (although
the executioner,) and could only say, with Prince Lachrymosa in the
pantomime, "give  me another pocket-handkercher."  All  I have to
say on this point is, that I fancied Dr. Knox had been slandering me
a good while, but, as I do not speak of my sufferings, to  priest or
layman, the benefits of complaining have been lost to me, and I must
continue to suffer in silence.  (Cry here.)
  Dr. Knox gives a long  quotation from a  part of Dr. Reyburn's late
paper, and italicises, among other  sentences, the  following: "The
mind  of the patient was kept in continued alarm, by the croaking  of
these  birds of  ill omen," &c.  He(  then  states that every  charge
brought against him, in this and  every  other part of the  paper, is
false.   If Dr. Knox will examine the opinion  he gave the patient, he
will find he was guilty of croaking, and is guilty of falsehood.   I will
repeat the consolation he  gave  the  woman,  that  my readers may
judge whether she was likely to be more tranquil under the mild in-
flictions  of the Doctor's  visit.  It will be borne in mind, that she
was considered in a dying state by Dr. K. at the  time he gave  his
opinion. " I told her that persons had recovered (the had is italicised, 
13
 and Was no doubt emphasized for proper effect,) in a similar situa-
 tion^ but it was not at all likely the hole in her side could  be  healed;
 that the question of her living depended very much on what part of the
 bowel was connected with the opening, and whether  the entire contents
 were passed by the opening or not."  It  will  be remembered that Dr.
 K. says that Mrs. Dugan, and other persons  in  the  room, when I
 made my visit, told me there was a prof use discharge  of the contents
 of the bowels immediately on the introduction of the Doctor's lancet
 However, there  was no croaking here—the patient  could not have
 been alarmed at this.  Mr. Light, Dr. Knox says, told him " that he
 did  not suppose the woman could be cured."  He said that be pre-
 sumed that Dr. Adreon did not expect her to live so long, or he might
 have visited her again."  The  woman, according  to  his own shew-
 ing, was in such  .... atdte that the least excitement or alarm  might
 have proved fatal.   But all this was not croaking.  Indeed the charge
 of croaking is entirely false,—her comforters  only seem to have at-
 tempted to frighten what little life, which according  to  their own
 shewing  remained in the woman, out of her.   But  I  should  not
 complain of this> for  they have actually made me  out a monument
 of skill; the woman is living now, six years  after, and  Dr.  Henry
 testified on the trial that  "the hole in her side was, in 1844, lower
 down than  that existing in 1840, so that the opening in the side did
 heal, notwithstanding Dr. Knox's admission of croaking against such
 a likelihood.  Perhaps the Doctors "medical education, picked up in
 those out-of-the-way places, Philadelphia and  Boston," enabled him
 to foresee that another perforation  would  ensue.   If he did, he cer-
 tainly beat me at guessing.
   Dr. Chase, ii his letter  published by Dr. Reyburn, says: "I made
 an examination of Mary Dugan in 1844, and did not  find hernia, or
 artificial anus.  I placed her in several positions, yet did not discov-
 er any protrusion of intestine or  omentum."   Similar testimony was
 given by other physicians, on the trial.  Here  then is evidence that
 this  pitiable  sufferer  has, at  one  time, been free from any disease*
 Dr. Knox, being good at guessing, probably  expected  me,  from hav-
 ing been once in  attendance, to divine when the woman  is  to be
 again threatened with disease, and, by foreseeing,  avert it.  This, I
 confess, my medical education does not enable me  to do.  After all
this  croaking, Dr. Knox talks of his truth  and sincerity, " having
nothing to fear from friend or foe, and  being willing that  all should
see his hand."  Had he acknowledged, when I  called on him at that
 time, the attempt to frighten  my  patient to death, or shake her con-
fidence in me by false opinions, which he discloses in his late paper,
I think the world would think me justifiable  in letting him feel my
hand.
  Dr. Knox denies that he ever behaved towards me in an ungentle-
manly and unprofessional manner, by reflecting on  the-treatment of
this case.  I would a$k, if telling the  woman that her life depended
on what part of the bowel was connected with the opening, was not
tantamount to telling her,  that if a certain principle were true, I had
killed her by making that opening?  There is a class of people who
have need of good memories,  and  Dr. Knox  belongs to that  class*
               »              2 
14
Would Dr. K. be such a simpleton as to assert, or rather would hs
expect to be believed, if he asserted, that any other physician, going
to a patient of his, without his knowledge, and giving such an opinion
of the state of the case as he admits he gave, would be acquitted by
him of the charge of impropriety ?  It will be observed, that in his ex-
planation to the patient, he did not, by a single remark,  lead her to
suppose that death would  be the result of her disease, but plainly
told her it would be the consequence of the opening I  had made.  In
the profession, it is considered  unprofessional and  ungentlemanly to
reflect upon  the  treatment of  a physician who may  have preceded
you in the case, although that physician may have been  discharged,
from not having given satisfaction.  In the charges of  ungentlemanly
conduct made against Dr. Knox, such as this especially  referred to,
he has published to the world his confession of such guilt.
  Dr. Knox affects to ridicule pretensions  to professional courtesy
and gentlemanly  conduct, in  every circumstance of  life, for which
Dr. Reyburn is an advocate, at  the same time that he does not ques-
tion Dr. R.'s practice of these points.   His  whole publication shews
that he is galled to the quick by the reflections cast upon  him, for the
vulgar, abusive tone of his note to Dr. White, and which he now at-
tempts to say was meant to reflect upon me, and not on Dr.  Rey-1
burn.   The truth of the  business is, Dr. Reyburn is quiet and retired
in his habits, and it was probably thought that he  could  be assailed
with impunity; but, as he has proved the contrary, Dr. Knox is now
forced to the step of turning on  me, although  I have been abusing
him*"a good while."  I need not say a word for Dr. Reyburn.   He
has practised in St. Louis since his graduation, and his diploma dates
a year or two after that of Dr. K.  During that  time, he has  been
before  his  professional  brethren, and  until the late "start of  the
hounds," who made a vain and futile attempt  " to  hunt him  down,"
the community knew him but as a quiet, unobtrusive, high-minded,
and honorable man, and the profession spoke of him in terms of the
highest respect.  Dr. Reyburn had before him, at the time he penned
his remarks relative to Dr. Knox, the  proofs of his  ungentlemanly
conduct.  Why Dr. Reyburn did not detail  the circumstances, I can-
not say.  Dr. R. seems to have intentionally given Dr. Knox a chance
of escape before the public, by his paragraph commencing "If I have
done injustice to Dr. Knox," &c.; but Dr. K., unable for a moment to
conceive that any man would forbear to injure another when it  was
in his power, supposes Dr.R. only refrained because he could not prove
the misconduct of Dr. K., and thereupon he turns a torrent of abuse on
Dr. Reyburn, for the few hints as to being more careful of his honor
in future, which he gives Dr. K., when he  might  so  easily have
proved, that the Dr. had not left himself any to take care of.  Dr. K.
seems perfectly charmed with a note from Dr. Simmons,  in which he
states, " he  was not invited by Dr.  K. to visit Mrs. Dugan," and
further states, that Dr. S. had  intended  accepting Dr. White's invi-
tation  to the case.  Although in his note Dr. S. expressly states, that
Dr. R. may have honestly taken the impression he stated, yet Dr. K^
implies a doubt of it.  That Dr. Simmons' reservation in  favor of Dr.
Reybnrn's veracity is just, may be gathered from the  fact of  Dr. 
15
White's never giving  an invitation  to  the  case, without using the
name of his " cats-paw," and that others than Dr. Reyburn, may have
taken  this impression  from Dr. Simmons' statement, is proved by a
note to Dr. R. (written since the  publication of Dr. Knox,) from Dr.
B. R. Mitchell, of this  city, stating the same impression to have been
taken by him, from Dr. Simmons relation of the circumstances, as that
stated  by Dr. R.   Moreover, Dr. R.can refer to another physician in
proof of the correctness of this assertion.  The facts of the matter, as
lately detailed by  Dr. Simmons to Dr. R. are these: Dr. S. was invited
to see  the case, and not knowing the nature of the interference, con-
sented to visit the patient the following day.   In the interval, having
ascertained the true state of affairs, and knowing the impropriety of
such conduct, he called the ensuing morning, to state to Dr. Knox,
his reasons for declining to fulfil  his engagement.   Dr.  Knox then
and there stated to Dr. Simmons—what he  since did not  confirm
when  on oath—that there, was no doubt the woman had hernia; that
Dr. Adreon had  maltreated the  case ;  had cut an intestine; in fine,
Dr. Knox  told Dr. Simmons all  that  Mrs. Dugan  asserted  Drs.
White and Knox said  to her, concerning her recovery and treatment,
which she told me, the very morning on which Dr. Knox told it to
Dr. Simmons.
   Dr.  Knox admits, that Drs. Beaumont and Reyburn may have once
believed the charges made against him.   What reason have they now
to  change their opinion ?  Dr. Simmons' account cannot clear Dr.
Knox; Mary  Dugan's  present testimony only convicts  herself of
falsehood.  She gave the same history of Drs. White and Knox's con-
duct which she gave to Dr.  Reyburn, to  Drs. Beaumont,  Sykes, Car-
penter, and Brown, not only as to the remarks condemning my treat-
ment,  but as to the endeavor to persuade her to retain Drs. White and
Knox, and dischai«ge me; Drs. White and Knox promising as an in-
ducement, to  obtain the attendance of many more physicians; and
their invitations to Dr. Simmons, Henry, &c, goes far to prove their
wish of convincing the woman of their ability to fulfil their promise.
Mrs. Dugan gave this account at a time when her interests were
likely to suffer by it, for Drs. White and Knox had been called in
by those who were supplying a portion  of her wants, and I  had, ac-
cording to Dr. Knox, been bitterly censured  by these persons.
   That Mrs.  Dugan  had not  authorized  any one  to call  in any
physician but myself, was sustained by the conduct of Mr. Light, for
when  he apologized  for himself,  he did not attempt to place on
Mrs. Dugan any  share  in the transaction, even to the charge of my
neglect, nor did he say a word to vindicate  Drs. White and Knox
from the  charges  Mrs. Dugan. had made against, their  conduct.  So
Dr. K. here adds one more to the catalogue of his falsifications, when
he asserts that I knew  from Mr. Light, that he was innocent of the
charges.  Mr. Light only took on himself the responsibility of having
called  in Drs. White and Knox ;  he did not attempt to excuse their
conduct during the visit.   Moreover, Mrs. Dugan invariably  held
firm to her representations of the conduct of Drs. White and Knox,
while she then lived in the.city, and we may suppose sfre did not
swerve from this statement, until the glittering bait of  $10,000 was 
16
held oufr to induce her to change.   Had the trial come on within two
or eveu three  years after the occurrence, the  testimony against Drs.
White and Knox would  have been overwhelming.  Death, as I have
shewn, removed one important witness, and the fluctuations of popu-
lation, and other changes of time, have removed  others.  However,
let Dr. K. persuade Mrs. Dugan to acknowledge  that what she said
of him to  Drs. Beaumont, Sykes.  Carpenter, Brown,  Reyburn, &c,
was false, and let him account for a portion of her statements agree-
ing, so exactly, with that which he  gave  Dr.  Simmons,  on  the
same morning she gave it to me, and he will advance some steps in
proving his innocence.  The fact of Drs. White and Knox never
seeing  the case after their interference,  and not being able  to tell on
the trial a word  about it, from the time  they interfered until the time
she left town, although Mr.  Light  and  other  friends  of  theirs were
frequently with her, goes far to prove that Mr. Light, as  well as his
friends, thought it better " to keep dark,"„until the noise of the affair
had blown over.
  Dr. Knox, in 1840, did not excuse himself for intruding  on my
patient, on the grounds he now advances.  When I  then called  on
him, demanding whether he had knowingly interfered with my pa-
tient,  telling  him I  had been so informed,  and that his opinions
had been given to my prejudice, he having said I had  maltreated the
patient, cut the bowel, and that she would die, &c, he denied know-
ing it was my  case, or that he had made remarks against  me, or  had
ever given an  opinion.   He said  he had been  called  to the case  by
Mr. Light, (without  naming Mr. Light's having the patient's au-
thority to call him in,)  that  he  had  refused  to  go  at  Dr. White's
request, as, from his knowledge of Dr. White, he  suspected  he would
inveigle him into some  difficulty,—he  supposed  misrepresentations
would  be made by him, and, to shield  himself from censure, he (Dr.
Knox) exacted the written note from Mr. Light, as the semblance of
authority  by which he acted.  This was the  substance of his repre-
sentations to Dr. Martin and myself.  I believed at the time that he
used falsehood, to avoid the penalty he evidently apprehended for his
conduct, but I  was induced to give him  the benefit of his turpitude,
and his late confessions show how correctly I estimated his  baseness.
  Dr. Knox discovers the discrepancy  of a  day  or so, in  the time
given by Dr. Reyburn, as that in which  the operation was performed,
and that given in Mr. Light's letter.  Dr. Reyburn was absent from
St.  Louis  before the operation, and did not return until some  time
after.  I am not as good at guessing as Dr. Knox, so never  imagined
all that was to follow.  When asked by Dr. R.,at the  time he visited
the patient, I gave him dates as nearly as they occurred to me.  Had
I known  his   intention  of  making notes, I  might have taxed  mv
memory more closely.  However, we have nothing to oppose to Dr.
Reyburn's statement of time,  but  the date of  Mr. Light's letter, and
the evidence  of Dr. Knox.  The note  was  never  spoken of nor
shewn  until the trial, so no one knows when it was written,—proba-
bly, first fjpr the occasion.  The meaning of other letters^ has been
falsified to suit circumstances, and why  not the date of this note ?
  In generating the  necessary-material for  his  defence, Dr. Knox 
17
hits upon the two  following falsehoods, namely, that Dr. Reyburn
proved Mary Dugan guilty of perjury by his owii testimony, and that
Dr.  White  " utterly disproved the  allegations  contained  in Dr.
Reyburn's  pamphlet."  These  assertions are without the shadow of
support, beyond the assertion of Dr. K., whose prejudice, stupidity,
or turpitude, will  account for  whatever wild assertions he makes.
Dr. Reyburn clearly shewed, by comparison of Mrs. Dugan's affidavit
with the sworn testimony  of her own daughter, of Dr. Knox, and of
nearly every physician sworn for the prosecution, that she was grossly
and foully perjured, on points which  no error of the understanding
would excuse.  She swore that she could have brought " witnesses to
prove  that  she had hernia seven years before the operation, and
which still exists to the present day."   Mrs. Bardo testified that "there
was no lump on her mother's side after the operation like what there
was  before."  Drs. Johnson, Pope, McDowell, Henry, Stevens, and
others, testified that  there was no evidence  of hernia in  June,  1844.
Mrs.  Bardo's testimony also  contradicted  her mother's statement,
" that  her side had never closed, even partially, up to the. hour she
left for the upper country, the  disease resulting from the operation,
having never been even partially cured."   Yet, in the face of a clear
conviction, from sworn testimony, of her utterly degraded character,
Dr. Knox,  without attempting to refute Dr.  Reyburn's reasoning,
makes the  foregoing  assertion.  But the  Dr.'s  sympathy for Mrs,
Dugan is readily accounted for.  They have a joint interest in  main-
taining the respectability of each other, for, unless it be shewn that
Mrs.  Dugan is a  truthful witness, then  Dr. Knox is without an
advocate for himself.   With Mrs.  Dugan's character for veracity falls
his own, and the Dr. is left without a solitary witness, to testify to his
good conduct towards  me.
   Dr. Knox expends some time,  wit, and  legal knowledge, on the
point of Dr. Reyburn having published my statement, as evidence of
the truth of his (Dr. R.'s)  assertions, forgetting, apparently, that Mrs.
Dugan's affidavit, and  the testimony of her daughter and son-in-law,
and that of Mr. and Mrs. Cox, (all  interested in the $10,000 damages,)
are all that it has been attempted to bring forward in witness of the
truth of charges against me.  Dr. Reyburn  published my letter, with
others from Drs. Beaumont, Brown, and Carpenter, to disprove what
had been charged on him, namely, that he had published a false report
of the circumstances of Mrs. Dugan's case in 1840.  These letters
shew that the statement given to Dr. Reyburn was identical with that
received by these physicians  from the patient, at other times than
when Dr. R. visited her, and sustained in the strongest terms Dr. R.'s
veracity.  As the accusation was against Dr. R., these witnesses are
certainly competent to testify for him.  The question raised is one of
character, and certainly, under the circumstances, I am as competent
to testify in the premises  as is the truthful Dr. Knox, both  being
interested to the same extent in the  issue.
   There is  a strong effort made by Dr. Knox to implicate Drs. Henry
and Trudeau in the charge of  unprofessional interference.  This, I
suppose, is in illustration of the truth of the saying, that "misery loves
company ;"  but, as I have never heard  a remark coming from these 
18
latter  gentlemen,  reflecting  on the treatment  or  opinions of the
attending  physicians in the  case, I cannot  oblige  Dr.  Knox  by
including them in his  disgrace.  Dr. Henry, in his letter to Dr.
White, shews  that he was  dragged into the case by falsehood, and
Dr. Trudeau was sent for without knowing the circumstances of the
case.   Dr. Knox states that "these gentlemen  come very near being
claimed as friends  by the original author of  the  accusations against
them."   Does he here mean Dr. White ? for his letter to Dr. Trudeau,
asking if he were one of the volunteer deputation, is the first charge
any one ever heard against them ; and, as to their being friends of
mine, I  have  no  reason, from  their expressions, to  believe  them
otherwise, and 1 really do not think they will feel  themselves flattered
by this effort on the part of Dr. Knox to associate them with him and
his  respectable  witnesses.  Dr. Beaumont's  including Dr. Trudeau
with Dr. Knox must have arisen from not knowing the circumstances
under which he  called.   Had  I  ever heard the  assertion  from Dr.
Beaumont, i would have corrected the impression.
  Dr. Knox speaks of Dr. Reyburn as "a tool."   When I  state that
neither Dr.  Beaumont nor myself ever knew of  his having made notes
of the case, until his paper was about  being read  before the Medical
Society, and that whatever he has written was without our knowledge,
wish, or suggestion, it will  be seen how much  he was influenced in
the matter by either of us.   That Dr. White did make a most pitiable
"cat's-paw" of Dr. Knox, is proved by Dr. Knox himself.   He told
Mr. Light "that he did  not wish to go to visit the case,—that I had
been abusing him a good while, and would abuse him a  good while
longer, if he went."  Mr. Light said Dr. White would not go alone.
Dr. Knox asked him to  get some other  person, but  no,  Dr. White
wanted Dr. Knox, and  White got Knox, and he  used Knox, and he
earned him  some pretty  hard knocks too.  He  never gave an invita-
tion to see the case, without using Dr. Knox's name ; he never spoke
of the case, except  as his and Dr. Knox's.  The Dr.  says he has seen
JVJrs. Dugan but once or twice since her  return,  but no matter for
that.  Dr. White used him to the extent of his wishes and intentions,
all through his yielding disposition, I suppose.   He slates, in his late
publication, that "Dr. White has shown himself cornpelent to manage
his own affairs;" that if it  were otherwise, "I hove neither cause or
disposition to interfere."   This is but another instance of the rat
leaving the sinking ship.  This is cruel, Dr. ; you might have  con-
tinued to serve as a "cat's-paw" a little longer; it would not take from
the dignity of the character you have earned ; it could not injure you
much, particularly as I have shewn that you have ventured latterly to
contradict Dr. White's statements, and you owed him  some amends
for this temerity.
  Dr. Knox attempts to excuse himself for his  silence when Dr.
Reyburn's paper on Mary Dugan's case was read in the  Medical
Society, by asserting he  could not learn that the charges of unpro-
fessional  conduct, therein staled, were laid at  his door.  Dr. K. is
very slow in comprehension, for he understood he was to be  attacked,
heard the charges read, with Mrs. Dugan's name quoted in the paper'
and  it  was always avowed  by  Dr.  Reyburn  that  Dr. Knox was 
                               19

one alluded to,  Every one  who  heard the paper, (except we  will
believe Dr. Knox, who was conveniently stupid on the occasion,) knew
who was referred to ;—no disguise of the fact was attempted, and I
defy Dr. K. to bring a single member of the Society to endorse the
truth of what  he asserts, that he could not know he  was alluded to.
But Dr. Knox never understands the  plainest allusions.  He has
repeatedly been publicly charged with  wilful  falsehood,  yet  would
not take the allusion to himself, and neither resented  nor disproved
the insulting charge. Neither of these alternatives could he adopt, as
the  necessary co-attribute  of  lying- is cowardice,  and  he  was as
incompetent  to  resent as to disprove.  I  have never been at all
reserved in expressing my opinions of Dr. Knox's conduct in the  case
of Mrs. Dugan ; have brought my  charges, not secretly, or in " myste-
rious whispers,'1 but openly, to Dr. Knox's friends, and perhaps to his
enemies, to new comers and  old settlers in the profession; and  that
Dr. Knox knew this, is  confessed in page 3 and 5  of his "Extra."
The subject  of Dr. Reyburn's paper  was  discussed when  it  was
read.  Dr. H. Lane related the  cases he quoted  on the trial, as
occurring in  his  practice.   Drs. Brown,  Sykes and others  were
present, and  would then, as  now, prove the falsehood of Dr. Knox's
assertions.
  Dr. Knox calls  upon Dr. Beaumont  either to prove, or withdraw,
the  charges  he endorses against him, at the  same  time felicitating
himself that  no proof is admissible against him,  unless  given from
personal observation ; and as Dr. B4 had no personal knowledge of the
facts on which to  form  an opinion, the charges are therefore false.
This being the notion entertained by Dr. K.  of the law  and  logic
applicable to  the case, Dr. Beaumont failing to do what Dr. K.  says
he must do, Dr. K. is to  proceed to perform a very grand, interesting,
and sublime  ceremony, over  the veritable remains  of Dr. William
Beaumont.   So also with myself; Dr. K. asserts that as I  had no
personal knowledge of the facts, and as  the secret of  his behaviour is
held between his worthy medical companion, his prostituted witness,
and himself;  therefore, there is absence of  all  testimony against Dr.
Knox.  Now, Mrs. Dugan, at the time of the occurrence, gave me the
knowledge on which my statements  are founded; and she likewise
made the same representations of Drs. White and Knox's  conduct to
Drs. Beaumont, Brown,  Sykes,  Carpenter, and  Reyburn, so that,
though  I stand alone as accuser  of Dr. Knox, my witnesses  are, in
number and respectability, above  comparison with those on Dr. K's
side of the question.  Mrs. Dugan did  not then acknowledge having
authorized Mr. Light to  call  in  other physicians, (but expressly, and
in strong language, condemned the act.)  She expressed her  unbounded
confidence in me, declared she did not want the others, that they had
told her I had maltreated her, and they sought to prejudice  and super-
cede me in the case; promising as an inducement to her to allow them to
attend, that they would get  others to visit  with them.  These  facts
will be  testified to at any time, by the gentlemen I  have named, to
wit: Drs. Beaumont, Sykes, Carpenter,  Brown, and  Reyburn.   One
of the gentlemen (Dr. Brown) to whom I shewed my letter published
by Dr. Reyburn, containing in substance what is here stated, said it 
20
   was strictly correct, and that the very expressions and circumstances,
   related as coming from Mrs. Dugan, he had a distinct recollection of
   heanno- stated bv her.  Mrs. Dugan at this time  had  no interest in
   deception, and as'she varied not in her tale until her interest  was to
   be served by it, we cannot, even in the face of her perjured affidavit,
   disbelieve her first statement.                     m
     Dr. Knox asserts (page 11 Extra) "he  is authorized to state, that
   it is not for want of effort to procure testimony, that I have failed in
   proving my accusations against  him."  This  is  a  base  and  wilful
   falsehood, and I  care not who may be the pretended authority for
  ' it I pronounce it a vile slander.   I  have never sought testimony
   against him, or others, connected with this case* and equally certain
   is it, that I was never,  as Dr. K. asserts, "sent back with a flea in my
   ear."   if the Dr-'s authority for this be a gentleman,  and feels himself
   aggrieved, he can have no difficulty in finding me, and I  will  pledge
   myself that he shall have  any satisfaction which he  may require.
   There never has  been  a time when I did not hold myself accountable
   for every assertion or statement I might make.
     In concluding  this discussion, I have but to say,  that if I could  add
   to the solemnity and force of the assertions, made  by me in Dr. Rey-
   burn's publications on Mrs. Dugan's case, I would do it to the feet,
   that the progressive history of the symptoms and circumstances of the
   case, as therein given, is true and reliable beyond the possibility of
   cavil;  and that the statements there rendered as given by the patient,
   were uninfluenced  by  me or others, so far as my knowledge extends.
   There is evidence, yet unproduced, to convict me  of false  statements,
   if such I have made.   Where is my letter, asserted  to  have been
   written, urging  Mrs. Dugan to leave the city?  Why are not the
   officers of the boat (or the boat's name) quoted, with whom it  is  said
   I contracted for  her passage ?  These assertions have been sworn to,
   yet I defy the production of the slightest shadow  of proof of them,
   beyond the perjured oaths of Mrs. Dugan and Mrs. Cox, and the rest
   of this prostituted band.   The  lapse  of years has  permitted  many
   material proofs to be lost to me.   When it was attempted to indict me
   for  mal-praxis, so weak was all the testimony then produced  for the
   proseeution, that not one witness in my defence was required  before
   the grand jury.   The prosecution  fell, from its  own weakness, for
   then falsehood and perjury were too dangerous a  kind of weapon to
   be  used ;  the case then would not bear perversion of its truth with
   impunity, and the interest of the prosecutrix was not appealed to.
     I have thus successively taken up each feature, in the motley group
   of Dr. Knox's confessions ; exposing the falsity of his assertions, deter-
   mined that no specious pleading, however plausibly put forth, should
   avail him in  the utterance of falsehood.  Some of the  points I have
   touched upon, are in themselves trivial, and unworthy of being gravely
i   reasoned upon ;  but  from the commencement of  this controversy,
   strength is attempted to be gathered to the assailants by amplification of
   trifles, and giving them undue importance, as the excuse for the bitter-
   ness of the attack.   The entire merits of  this controversy  can be  nar-
   rowed down  to a very small issue.   In regard to the medical points in
   the case, I shall not engage in debate.  These were settled by the testi- 
                                21

mony on the trial.   With  the public, the medical question is reduced
to this, namely:  Whether Drs. Beaumont, Brown, Carpenter, Reyburn,
Sykes, and Adams, are not as competent to distinguish hernia as are
Drs. White and Knox.   The remaining point at issue with Dr. Knox
is, did he conduct himself in an ungentfemanly, vindictive, and unpro-
fessional manner  towards me in Mary Dugan's case ?  I assert he did,
and herein I have stated the grounds on which I sustain the truth of
my assertions.  Drs. Beaumont,  Sykes, Carpenter, Brown, and  Rey-
burn will bear me out, in the truth of the charges I have made.
  So far as I am concerned myself, Dr. Knox might quietly have con-
tinued the course he seems  to  have marked out for himself, that of
indulgence in low abuse, and utter disregard of truth ;  but when Dr.
Beaumont, for an act of charity to a pauper patient, and of courtesy to
me, and of Dr. Reyburn for merely testifying what he knew of the case,
on  which we had not exchanged words for years, are put up (as Dr.
Knox expresses it,) " as targets for base and  poisoned  darts," I  deem
it but an act of justice to them, to give the proofs of the character of
their assailants.   The  style of Dr. Beaumont's letter to Dr. Reyburn,
has even been attacked by Dr. Knox, but it seems to me, so far as I am ca-
pable of judging, that Dr. Beaumont's expressions were on the order of the
plain and comprehensible.   If Dr. Knox  could not understand them,
he was about the only one  who  could not.   I need not say a  word in
defence of Dr. Beaumont against his slanderers.  The evidence of a
man's elevation, is the malice of his enemies;  his very success lifts him
up to be the mark  for the  impotent shafts of  the abusive, the envious,
and malicious.   I need not claim for Dr. Beaumont this high position,
it is a matter of record and public acknowledgment;  yet his assailants,
placed  far below his level  in professional and social estimation, would
affect to reach him with their envenomed, yet futile attacks. I will not
insult him, or gratify them by further comparison.  Could they but gain
his notice, it would serve in a degree as a certificate of respectibility,
and gratify that craving for notoriety, which corrupt minds are too apt
to indulge in.
   There is one important point yet left unsettled, exciting no  doubt to
the impatience of Dr. Knox.  It appears from  his "Extra" that the
time for Dr. Reyburn to retract his error, and apologize, was after the
gross and contemptible epistle given to Dr. White by Dr. Knox.   That
precious  moment  for Dr. Reyburn,  having  passed  away  without
notice, we are forbidden to indulge the hope, that any future breath ol
Heaven may waft  the  apology  towards Dr.  K. and  enable Dr. R. to
obtain his forgiveness for the heinous crime of believing the truth.  But
this is not the worst of the affair.   Dr. Knox in the very same •' Extra,"
still allows Dr.  Beaumont an opportunity of retracting his error, and
offering his apology, or else he is, by Dr. Knox's edict, to stand in the
very face of  this community, (it would  be downright madness to force
any one to stand in any body's face, exclusive of all considerations of
the instability of  his foot-hold, in case he trod on a man's nose, let  alone
a community of  noses,) " with the brand  of a  wilful, deliberate, and
false calumniator, in letters of living light (legibly lithographed, likely,)
upon his brow,"  "which, if he fail to do, one of the others he shall do."
 What a terrible threat, and in what tremendously grand, and overpow- 
22
 ering language it is conveyed.   How lucky for  Dr. Reyburn that his
 precious moment came  before Dr.  Beaumont's.  The  words of this
 terrible denunciation, thunder out  like a  volley of small  artillery,
 whether it  be, that  Dr. Beaumont is stunned by the report or not, I
 cannot say, but certain it is, he is not coming to apologize, and so the
 grand and fearful ceremony must be  performed by Dr. Knox.   I have
 never seen anything of the kind, but it must be imposing, and I shall
 be among the crowd of witnesses on the occasion.  Indeed, I may
 promise the Dr., that the entire profession will  there  rally round him,
 but will they allow the signet to be  torn by Dr. Knox  from his own
 brow.  These " letters of living light,"  if to be taken from Dr. Knox,
 will leave his face unilluminated with the only truth that ever  was
 stampt upon it.   As the  Dr. says of  himself, " who is Dr. Knox  and
 what is he in his father's house" that he should be selected for such an
 august, imposing, and uncommon operation?  Dr. William Beaumont
 is to be branded by Dr. F. Knox—ye powers defend us !!  The Bom-
•basto-Furioso style of Dr. Knox's termination to his Extra is so  cal-
 culated  to  alarm  my unfortunate associates, that I am  compelled in
 common  consideration for the stuff of which men's nerves are made, to
 come to the rescue by terminating the controversy.
   Seriously speaking, this vexatious  subject having come before  the
 public, with a novel issue created (as Dr. Beaumont foretold would be the
 case) each time it  has been taken up by my assailants, I deem it proper
 to assume the onus of defence, give the proofs  against those engaged
 in this holy war,  and if possible silence my malignant  traducers.  I
 regret being obliged to resort to  any expose of Dr. Knox.  He is my
 avowed enemy, and it is almost a thing impossible to  quiet the ton an e
 of his hate.  Let the controversy terminate as it may, he  is the gainer •
 his feelings  are relieved by  his  utterance of  abuse, and  his character
 cannot be much degraded.  Falsehood  may be, as  it has often  been
 thrown back on him publicly or privately, but he will bear it meekly,
 and resignedly; he is used to it.  This is not the first time I, or others,
 have been  compelled to hurl his falsehoods in his teeth.   But he takes
 such ordinary incidents patiently, never attempting anything in retalia-
 tion, or defence, but base, vindictive  attempts against the characters of
 others, in a vain attempt to reduce them to his level.   Nothing but his
 contemptible, cringing cowardice has  shielded him from  the chastise-
ment he should have  received from me on several occasions.  With
 such a man what can you do ?   There is nothing left, nothing requsite
to be done, but to treat hisj'impotent efforts to injure with the silent
 contempt they merit.  " Whatever he now says, will be taken with due
 allowance  for his bitter,  intollerant  and abusive spirit.   His temper
forbids him fair judgment."   Hereafter, his  well known character will
be my defence.  I should, indeed, have rested thus protected even now,
but as his publication has gone abroad where he  is not known, it is but
right it should bear the stamp of its author ;  and I have  now done all
I shall attempt to do, given proofs of my assailant's real merits. 
 
 
                            ERRATA.
The reader will please make the following corrections:
  On page 13, third line from the bottom, instead of—" That if a certain
principle were true," read—"That if a principal portion were cut."
  On page 21, third line from the top, instead  of—"Sykes and Adams,"
read—"Sykes and Adreon."
  On the same page, fifth  line of second paragraph, omit "of," before
" Dr.  Reyburn."