AN EXAMINATION 
OF THE 
MEDICAL EVIDENCE 
IN THE 
TRIAL OF MRS. E. G. WHARTON, 
ON THE CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO POISON EUGENE 
VAN NESS. ESQ. 
By S. C. CHEW, M.D., 
PROFESSOR OF MATERIA MEDICA AND CLINICAL MEDICINE IN TH 
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE, MD. 
Reprinted from “ The Medical Record,” JVo. 182, July 15, 
1813. 
WILLIAM WOOD & CO. 
NEW YORK: 
1873. AN EXAMINATION 
OF THE 
MEDICAL EVIDENCE 
IN THE 
TRIAL OF MRS. E. G. WHARTON, 
ON THE CHARGE OP ATTEMPTING TO POISON EUGENE 
VAN NESS, Egt}. 
By S. C. CIIEW, M.D., 
PROFESSOR OF MATERIA MEDICA AND CLINICAL MEDICINE IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF MABYLAND, BALTIMOBE, MD. 
Reprinted from “ The Medical Recobd,” No. July 15, 
1873. Cf 
NEW YORK: 
WILLIAM WOOD & CO. 
1873. AN EXAMINATION OF THE 
MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL OF 
MRS. E. G. WHARTON, 
ON TnE CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO POISON EUGENE 
VAN NESS, ESQ. 
By S. C. CHEW, M.D., 
PROFESSOR OF MATERIA MEDICA AND CLINICAL MEDICINE IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE, MD. 
The science of medical jurisprudence rests to a great 
extent upon authoritative decisions which have been 
made upon special cases. Its questions, however, be- 
long to the domain of physical science, which does 
not regard authority merely as such, but looks only to 
carefully ascertained facts ; and it is therefore of the 
highest importance for a really valuable application 
of medical jurisprudence to the administration of the 
law, that its recorded cases should be the result of 
faithful study and accurate report. 
It is evident, also, that such a misrepresentation of 
the facts of a case as may cause false conclusions to 
be drawn is, if wilful, a crime against society of the 
gravest character, since it tampers with the sources 
whence the administrators of the law derive their 
knowledge, and thus corrupts the very fountain-heads 
of justice. 
I purpose to narrate in this paper the prominent 
facts of a very important case in legal medicine which 
has occurred in my own practice, partly to put upon 
record a truthful report of the same, and partly to 4 
correct any erroneous impressions in regard to it that 
may have been gotten from other sources. 
The annals of toxicology furnish few cases of greater 
intrinsic importance, or that have more generally at- 
tracted the notice of the profession, than the two trials 
of Mrs. E. G. Wharton, at Annapolis, Md., the one in 
December, 1871, on the charge of poisoning General 
W. S. Ketchum, and the other in January, 18711, on 
the charge of attempting to poison Mr. Eugene Van 
Ness. The present article will consist chiefly of an 
examination of the second of these trials. From the 
social positions of the parties alleged in the State’s 
indictment to have been poisoned, and also of the ac- 
cused, great interest was excited in the community in 
which the events occurred; and this became more 
wide-spread from the fact that witnesses and experts 
were summoned to give testimony from various and 
remote parts of the country. 
For the same reasons the trials were reported with 
much minuteness of detail by many journals, and 
were more or less commented upon by others both 
here and in Europe. 
Under these circumstances it is not at all surprising 
that strenuous efforts should have been made by the 
counsel for the defence to break the force of the 
State’s allegation of poison having been administered, 
as affirmed by its medical and chemical witnesses. 
Various means were resorted to with this view, natural 
enough perhaps as the devices of lawyers, but when 
suggested or countenanced by physicians, such as to 
cause fully as much indignation as surprise on the 
part of all fair-minded members of the medical pro- 
fession. 
Thus, when in the former trial several members of 
the Faculty of the University of Maryland had ex- 
pressed an opinion under oath that the death of Gen. Ketchum was due to poison, it was perhaps not very 
strange that the prisoner’s counsel should endeavor to 
lessen the weight of such damaging testimony by sug- 
gesting the existence of a bias in the minds of these 
witnesses in favor of their colleague, who conducted 
the chemical examination of Gen. Ketchum’s remains. 
Such an intimation was easily thrown out; it might 
possibly have effect upon some ignorant and impressi- 
ble juror, and, therefore, however grossly unjust and 
palpably untrue, the opportunity it offered of effect- 
ing a desired end was too good to let pass. Such 
slight considerations as injustice and untruth could 
not be allowed to stand in the way of a specious argu- 
ment; so that with the understanding of the duties 
of advocacy, which, it is to be feared, prevails too 
widely, the use of such an argument before a jury 
ought not perhaps to cause much surprise. 
Very different, however, must be the estimate put 
upon the conduct of members of the medical profes- 
sion, who could deliberately publish such aspersions 
upon professional witnesses as are contained in two 
articles, the one by Dr. J. J. Reese, in the American 
Journal of the Medical Sciences for April, 1872, and 
the other by Dr. II. C. Wood, Jr., in the New York 
Medical Record for April 15, 1873. 
I have elsewhere commented upon Dr. Reese’s review 
of the Wharton-Ketchum trial, and have shown his 
unfairness as a critic in suppressing portions of testi- 
mony, and also the errors of logic with which he was 
chargeable in his effort to make the facts of the case 
square with the ill-founded theory that has been ad- 
vanced by another, and adopted to a certain extent by 
himself.* In this paper, Dr. Reese arraigned the 
medical witnesses from whose views he professed to 
* See Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal, July, 1872. dissent, on the charge of “glaring departure from 
propriety,” and also of prejudice in the formation and 
expression of their opinions. Going beyond the range 
of matters pertaining to his own profession, he cen- 
sured the Attorney-General of Maryland for the mode 
in which the case was conducted for the State, and 
even undertook to rebuke the Judges upon the bench 
for certain of their rulings in court. 
Let it be remembered that J)r. Reese’s article was 
published in the interval between the first and second 
trials, and that it was shown in evidence taken in the 
second trial that it had been widely circulated in 
pamphlet form in the county in which that trial was 
to be held. Some may find in this circumstance an 
explanation both of the character of the article and 
also of its opportune appearance. 
At the second trial of Mrs. Wharton, on the charge 
of attempting to poison Mr. Van Ness, Dr. Reese again 
appeared as a medical and chemical expert, accom- 
panied this time by his colleague, Dr. II. C. Wood, Jr. 
As I have sufficiently examined Dr. Reese’s testimony 
and his comments upon the first trial, I shall consider 
here Dr. Wood’s connection with the second trial, and 
the notices of it which have emanated from his pen 
since its conclusion. That trial resulted, as is well 
known, in a divided jury, eight voting for conviction 
and four for acquittal. It is to be observed that, as 
Dr. Reese’s pamphlet had appeared previously to the 
second trial, so Dr. Wood’s first publication upon the 
subject came out in the pages of a non-professional 
journal, at a time when it was generally believed that 
a new trial would take place. 
With the view, perhaps, of giving more force to 
their attack upon the Faculty of the University of 
Maryland, these witnesses in their examination in chief 
announced themselves as Professors in the University of Pennsylvania. The name of that school may have 
added weight to their testimony in the estimation of 
some persons ; but in the cross-examination the fact 
was elicited that they occupied the position of auxiliary 
professors only. With the records that they have made 
for themselves in their testimony upon the stand, and 
in their subsequent comments upon the trials, the an- 
cient Institution with which they are connected may 
well disclaim such assistants: 
Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis. 
In the number of Lippincott's Magazine for April, 
1873, an article appeared from the pen of Dr. Wood, 
entitled “ Medical Expert Evidence.” Its title would 
suggest the discussion of an abstract topic; had it 
been such, it would have been perfectly legitimate, 
and no exception could rightfully have been taken to 
its publication in the pages in which it appeared. 
But when, under cover of this name, Dr. Wood ven- 
tilated medical questions and attacked the opinions of 
medical men before the general public, his course of 
action can be characterized only as unethical and un- 
professional. 
Dr. Wood should have known that no right-minded 
physician would stoop to follow him into the arena of 
controversy which he had chosen. There he might 
safely have remained to enjoy the cheap plaudits won 
from those who, while incapable of weighing medical 
arguments, are readily impressed by false assertions and 
garbled facts. Now, however, that he has ventured 
into the fair field of medical discussion, an oppor- 
tunity is afforded for commenting upon his conduct, 
and for vindicating the truth. 
The New York Medical Record for April 15,1873, 
contains a “ Review of the Medical Testimony in the Trial of Mrs. E. G. Wharton,” by Dr. Wood, which, 
in the interest of truth, and as a matter of simple jus- 
tice to my professional friends and to myself, I feel 
constrained to examine. If in doing so my words shall 
be thought by any to be harsh or unmeasured, I would 
call attention to the following terms in which my col- 
leagues and myself have been assailed by Dr. Wood :— 
On page 1753 of the Medical Record, our evidence 
in the trial is spoken of as “ the most extraordinary, 
ignorant, or biassed and untrue expert testimony given 
by the medical gentlemen engaged in the prosecution," 
etc. 
Again, on the same page it is stated that the trial 
“ had its origin, as had also the judicial proceedings, 
in the blundering of Dr. Aikin and his colleagues ; ” and 
in the same connection, “ the whole faculty of the 
University appeared in support of their colleague Dr. 
Aikin, until they were all compromised equally with 
him, and their reputations equally involved with his.” 
In view of the spirit shown by such utterances, let it 
be judged whether justice and propriety call for 
smoothness of speech in reply. That which is rather 
needed and deserved is stern rebuke for deliberate 
wrong-doing. 
I do not propose to burden these pages with a de- 
tailed statement of all the circumstances of the case 
which gave origin to the trial held in January, 1873, 
but shall mention its clinical features and the facts in 
its history which are necessary to establish its diagnosis. 
My object in writing this paper is to give a true ac- 
count of the case from my own personal observation. 
I shall show in addition, 1st, that Dr. Wood’s opinions 
are invalidated by eager partisanship; 2dly, that he 
has misrepresented the facts of the case; and 3dly, 
that he has displayed a want of professional informa- 
tion in regard to the subjects upon which he writes. 9 
I would call attention at the outset to the widely 
different relations held to this case in a legal point 
of view by the various medical witnesses called by the 
State, on the one hand; and by Dr. Wood and his col- 
league, Dr. Iteese, on the other. 
Dr. Williams and myself, as citizens of Maryland, 
were compelled by process of law to be present at the 
trials in Annapolis as witnesses to facts which had 
come under our own personal observation, and were 
also required to give our professional opinions as 
medical experts. From this there was no escape; our 
presence and the delivery of our testimony were com- 
pulsory. That we discharged this duty entirely free 
from passion or prejudice is incontestably proved by 
the fact that previously to the trials each of us had 
given to the defence a written statement of what we 
had observed. In doing this we were under no com- 
pulsion whatever; it was purely a free-will offering, 
designed for no other end than to aid the counsel for 
the defence in the work they had undertaken. 
Our course was certainly open and liberal, and 
neither sophistry nor malignity could impute it to an 
unworthy motive. So far then as it was voluntary, 
our action was in aid of the defence, while our testi- 
mony as witnesses for the State, as well as that of all 
my colleagues in the University of Maryland, was 
given under a constraint which no citizen can resist; 
for the strong arm of the law was upon us. 
What, on the other hand, were Dr. Wood’s relations 
to this case ? Living in the city of Philadelphia, where 
no process of a Maryland court could reach him; 
knowing nothing of the history or merits of the case, 
and therefore not inspired with the desire to enter the 
lists in the cause of injured innocence, for he dis- 
tinctly asserts that “ until after the recent trial he had 
never read any medical or other account of the first 10 
trial; ” * lie bargained with the senior counsel for the 
defence, and received n fee to “ aid,” as he says, “ in 
bringing out the facts of the case, and to give private- 
ly a professional opinion thereon.” In other words, 
he voluntarily assumed the position of paid counsel to 
the counsel. These were the circumstances under which 
Dr. Wood came to a conclusion different from that ex- 
pressed by the witnesses for the State. 1 Ie deems it neces- 
sary, however, to insist that “ as far as possible his opin- 
ion was formed without bias; ” but the reason he ad- 
duces in support of this position is certainly a little 
curious, and will hardly be considered very cogent. 
My agreement with Mr. Thomas, the senior coun- 
sel,” he says, “was that my duties should be to aid in 
bringing out the facts of the case, and to give privately 
a professional opinion thereon; for this and this only 
was a fee to be received. It was to be left to Mr. 
Thomas whether this opinion, should also be promulgated 
from the witness-stand, but for going on the stand no fee 
whatever was to be given or taken. I had, therefore, no 
possible interest to serve in this matter, and whatever 
the profession may judge of my opinion, I do insist 
that, as far as possible, it was formed without bias.” 
Now it is plain from this statement that, by Dr. 
Wood’s own showing, the compact under which lie re- 
ceived his fee contained several specifications, one of 
which was, that if required by the counsel employing 
him, he should give his opinion from the witness- 
stand ; yet, while admitting payment for the opinion 
as one item, he denies receiving any remuneration for 
another, viz., its enunciation from the stand. 
And this statement he expects to be taken as proof 
of freedom from bias ! Truly a remarkable argument, 
and one which may serve to show Dr. Wood’s power 
* Med. Record, April 15th, 1878, p. 172. 11 
of lucid reasoning. To what class of persons does he 
address himself? 
Again, he freely charges those whose opinions he im- 
pugns with partisanship and bias, forgetting that his 
own record in the late trial was such that he, of all the 
witnesses examined, should have been most careful to 
avoid imputations of this kind. 
However conscious Dr. Wood may have been of an 
effort to win in a contest, it might have been supposed 
that prudence at least would have deterred him from 
the public reference to his “ side,” which called down 
upon him in open court a merited rebuke from the 
learned and dignified Chief-Justice. “It would be 
well,” said Judge Miller, “that the witness should not 
speak of his side. The only parties in this case are 
the State of Maryland and the accused, and their inter- 
ests must not be imperilled by a witness taking a side.” 
Charity might have drawn a veil over this portion of 
the proceedings in which Dr. Wood appeared in so 
very unenviable a light, had he not flouted others with 
a charge which was fixed upon himself alone. After 
this unfortunate betrayal of his partisan position, he 
left the stand, the object of derision to the jury and 
the spectators, and of sincere pity (for the esprit de 
corps will assert itself) on the part of all the medical 
men present, even of those whom he was employed to 
attack. 
And yet this is the witness who charges the Faculty 
of the University of Maryland with giving “ biassed 
and untrue testimony;” with being “all compro- 
mised,” and having “ their reputations equally in- 
volved.” Such charges betray an endeavor to accom- 
plish by abuse what could not be effected by argument. 
I mention with reluctance any statements having a 
personal reference to myself; but having been assured 
by all three of the counsel for the defence, Messrs. Steele. Thomas, and Hagner, that my testimony as a 
witness for the State in these trials was free from every 
indication of bias or passion, it will easily be believed 
that I regard Dr. Wood’s imputations as infinitely insig- 
nificant. 
From what has been stated, it is obvious that Dr. 
Wood’s opinions must be received with great caution, 
from his avowed position as the maintainor of a 
“ side," while his qualifications as a critic of the views 
of others cannot be admitted at all. 
Some men, however, are partisan by nature, and are 
consequently unable to discern that aspect of a case 
which is counter to their own preconceived views; and 
to a certain extent those who are thus constituted are 
perhaps excusable for the errors into which they fall. 
But no faulty construction of temper or of mind can 
excuse such misrepresentation of facts as is to be 
found in the papers now under notice. In the account 
given by Dr. Wood of Mr. Van Ness’s illness, and of the 
management of the case by the physicians in attend- 
ance, the misstatements are of such nature that they 
can only be regarded as deliberate, and made for the 
purpose of giving factitious support to his “ side." 
I shall not enumerate all of these misstatements; a 
few examples will be sufficient to show the second 
reason for which Dr. Wood’s report of the case must 
be set aside as wholly unreliable. 
A brief statement of the principal facts of Mr. Van 
Ness’s sickness as they really occurred and were testified 
ao is here necessary, in order to expose the erroneous 
account given of them by Dr. Wood. 
On the 24th of June, 1871, about four o’clock in 
the afternoon, Mr. Van Ness was invited to partake of 
lager-beer, into which a small quantity of what was 
stated to be gentian bitters had been poured. This he 
found so excessively bitter that after taking four or five sips of it, lie could drink no more. A few mo- 
ments after swallowing this, his vision became ob- 
scured, and on attempting to rise he felt so weak that 
he grasped at the window-frame to avoid falling.* 
Very quickly a feeling of stiffness in the back was ex- 
perienced, extending to the arms and fingers, and 
thence to the legs, which “straightened out in a direct 
line from the body.” In his struggles lie fell upon the 
floor, his jaws became rigid, and a convulsion occurred 
in which he felt as though there were “ a crushing in 
of the backbone.” 
A second paroxysm followed, more violent than the 
first, and accompanied with a feeling of suffocation. 
Convulsions of this tetanic character, amounting to 
complete opisthotonos, frequently recurred, the head 
being thrown back and the countenance growing dus- 
ky. In the height of the paroxysms consciousness was 
several times lost, returning, however, when their severi- 
ty abated. Dr. P. C. Williams arriving at this time, ad- 
ministered an emetic of sulphate of zinc, which caused 
free vomiting, and then gave chloroform by inhalation, 
which controlled the condition, and prevented the full 
development of the convulsions. Rigidity of the body 
continued, however, with extreme sensitiveness and 
spasmodic contractions of the limbs, especially when 
anything came in contact with him. At this time I 
saw him, and, on conference with Dr. Williams, we 
determined to administer hydrate of chloral, under 
which the tendency to convulsions gradually passed 
away, and sleep came on. After all convulsive mani- 
* Within the last few days a case has been brought to my notice, of a 
gentleman, who, when under the influence of strychnia, which had been 
administered in gradually increasing doses for disease of the retina and 
optic nerve, experienced a sensation of confusion in the head, and in 
endeavoring to stand was observed to catch at the tables and chairs in 
the room to avoid falling. 14 
festations had ceased, the patient was occasionally fan- 
ned, as the weather was very warm. 
It is to be observed that Ness has never at 
any time before or since the evt*As described experi- 
enced a convulsion of any kihdVnor has there ever 
been any recurrence of the sensations'he then felt. 
On the following day he awoke, “feeling bright,” 
as he said; but after eating a piece of dry toast 
and drinking a cup of tea, he became nauseated, and 
felt a sensation of burning in the stomach. 
Nausea and vomiting continued nearly the whole 
day, and were supposed, in the absence of a better ex- 
planation, to be possibly due to the use of chloroform 
and chloral; though this explanation was not satisfac- 
tory, since many hours had elapsed between the last ad- 
ministration of these remedies and the first occurrence 
of the vomiting. 
For these symptoms he was treated with small quan- 
tities of brandy and water, creasote and lime-water, 
and finally with hydrocyanic acid. Gradually they 
abated, and in the morning of the following day, Mon- 
day, he was again better, and by my direction took 
two-thirds of a cup of beef-tea, which had been 
brought from his sister’s house, and which proved 
grateful and refreshing. In less than an hour after- 
wards he ex pressed a desire for more, and it was accord- 
ingly brought from the cellar, where it had been 
placed after the first dose was taken, in order to 
be warmed by the kitchen fire. Before the second 
dose was given, some extinct of celery-seed was 
brought by an inmate of the house, and poured into the 
beef-tea. After swallowing this, nausea again came 
on, and he was unwilling to take more; but about 11 
p.m. it was, against his wish, given to him again, when 
he fell asleep, but soon awoke with great oppression 
in the chest, intense nausea, constant vomiting, a sharp burning pain in the throat extending to the stomach, 
a metallic taste in the mouth, and irritability of the 
bowels. Such was the condition after taking the beef- 
tea. 
Dr. Williams, who resides in the immediate neigh- 
borhood, was summoned, and arriving about one 
o’clock in the morning of Tuesday, - found Mr. Van 
Ness prostrated and pale, his surface cool and cov- 
vered with a profuse perspiration, his voice almost in- 
audible, and his pulse scarcely, if at all, perceptible. 
Under the free administration of brandy, he gradually 
recovered from this perilous state, and later in the day 
was much improved, though still greatly debilitated. 
It must be mentioned, as a very important part of the 
history of the case, that on the following day, June 
28th, milk-punch was prepared for the patient by his 
wife, and administered by her. This was well borne 
by the stomach; but after part of it was taken, the 
tumbler with the residue was placed in a refrigera- 
tor, and on being brought out was found to con- 
tain a sediment, on which account no more of it was 
given. This sediment proved on chemical analysis to 
be tartar-emetic. 
The above is a sketch of the prominent features of 
Mr.-Van Ness’s case. In drawing it I have scrupulous- 
ly avoided reference to any collateral circumstances, 
except those which serve to throw light on the history 
and diagnosis of the case. 
The medical witnesses called by the State expressed 
the opinion that the symptoms of the attack of the 
24tli of June were due to strychnia. The grounds for 
this opinion were: 1st, the suddenness of the attack; 
2dly, the speedy occurrence of tetanic spasms of the 
muscles of the neck, back, limbs, and jaws; 3dly, the 
sensation as of a crushing blow upon the back at the 
occurrence of each paroxysm ; 4thly, the extreme sen- sitiveness and irritability, which occasioned convul- 
sive contractions upon the slightest touch or shock; 
Stilly, the results produced by the medical means em- 
ployed; Gthly, the clearness of mind during the inter- 
vals between the convulsions; and, Tthly, as a corrobora- 
tive reason, the intensely bitter taste of the very small 
quantity of liquid swallowed immediately before the 
seizure; strychnia being the most intensely bitter sub- 
stance in nature. 
AVe maintained further that the action of strychnia 
is so peculiar and characteristic that a conclusion as to 
its being the cause of symptoms observed, may lie 
reached independently of chemical evidence. 
In this opinion we were supported by numerous 
medical authorities, who speak of tetanus as the only 
condition liable to be confounded with strychnia 
poisoning, from which, however, it may readily be dis- 
tinguished with proper care.* 
The possibility of the case being due to tetanus was 
absolutely excluded by its history, as shown in the 
suddenness of the attack immediately after drinking 
an intensely bitter fluid, and in the entire cessation of 
the symptoms in a few hours. Such a history belongs 
neither to traumatic nor to idiopathic tetanus, while 
* See Gross’s Surgery; Da Costa on Diagnosis; Hammond on 
Diseases of the Nervous System. The opinion expressed above was 
controverted by Dr. J. J. iteese, who stated in his testimony that 
‘•there is not a single poison that can lie exclusively determined by the 
symptoms; if you could not distinguish by the symptoms, there would 
be only one other means of distinguishing: that would be a chemical 
analysis of the food.” It is somewhat noteworthy that in a report 
of a case of strychnia poisoning published by Dr. Keese in the Artier. 
Journal of the Med. Sciences for Oct., Ibfil, a precisely opposite 
opinion is expressed. He states that he conducted the chemical exam- 
ination with scrupulous care and “entirely failed to detect any 
evidence of the presence of strychnia;” yet “all the moral circum- 
stances connected with the case (as elicited in the subsequent trial) as 
well as the symptom» attending the woman's dea A, clearly pointed to 
poisoning by strychnia.” it is perfectly characteristic of non-fatal cases of 
strychnia poisoning. The supposition that the case 
was hysterical or “ hysteroidal" in nature, as main- 
tained by Dr. Wood, is so utterly absurd that its refu- 
tation seems almost an unwarrantable trespass upon 
patience. 
A gentleman of calm and unexcitable temperament, 
who had never in his life experienced a spasmodic or 
nervous attack of any sort, partakes when “perfectly 
well in mind and body ” of an excessively bitter 
drink, and is suddenly stricken down with tetanic 
convulsions of sucii violence as to produce perfect 
opisthotonos and threaten asphyxia; and this condi- 
tion is pronounced by a physician who had never seen 
the patient, and knew nothing of his constitution, to 
be simply “ hy steroidal'"! It is really hard to con- 
ceive the force of folly going further. The avowal of 
such an opinion would seem to tax to the utmost the 
resources of effrontery; and the assurance shown in 
the diagnosis might well provoke a smile, were not the 
means used to give it a show of plausibility such as to 
cause a feeling more akin to indignation than to 
amusement. 
Dr. Wood asserts that “none of the characteristic 
symptoms of strychnia poisoning were present in the 
case of Mr. Van Ness;” a bold statement in view of 
the account given in the testimony, and as I have nar- 
rated it above. In his report of the case he makes no 
mention of the intense sensitiveness and irritability 
which induced convulsions on a slight touch or shock, 
and which are so highly characteristic of the effects of 
strychnia. 
Knowing, however, that they are thus characteristic, 
he refers to Mr. Van Ness’s desire to be fanned as dis- 
proving the action of strychnia; whereas, there was not 
one word of evidence that the fanning was desired or practised until after the convulsive tendency had 
ceased. 
Again, Dr. Wood avoids mentioning the striking 
symptoms of the respiration being much embarrassed 
by the contraction of the muscles of the chest, and the 
consequent dusky hue of the complexion. These, 
taken in connection with the other symptoms, are too 
strongly indicative of strychnia to be alknved a place 
in his description of the case. 
The attempt to disprove the influence of strychnia 
by showing that the spasmodic symptoms did not oc- 
cur in a regular sequence, and that certain sets of 
muscles were not affected in a special order or degree, 
is a very fallacious sort of reasoning; for, though in 
many cases the usual order may be observed, yet when 
a large dose of strychnia is taken, so rapid and general 
is the influence, that all the voluntary muscles may lie 
almost simultaneously affected. This is admitted by 
Dr. Wood to be true in some cases of strychnia poison- 
ing ; it was true in Mr. Van Ness's case; for, though lie 
spoke of the “ stiffening sensation gradually extending ” 
from hi8 arms to his legs, yet he did not use the word 
gradually in the sense of slowly, since only a few 
moments elapsed from the first sensation of uneasiness 
to the full development of the attack. 
The symptoms of Sunday and Monday, the 25th 
and 26th of June, were ascribed by the medical wit- 
nesses for the State to the action of an irritant poison. 
This opinion was based, 1st, upon the repeated oc- 
currence of gastric or gastro-intestinal irritation after 
taking different articles of food and drink, some of 
which produced a sensation of burning in the stomach ; 
and 2dly, upon the profound sedation which occurred 
after the swallowing of the beef-tea in the evening of 
the 26th of June. 
I expressed the opinion in regard to these symptoms 19 
that they were “ due to some irritant poison taken with 
the food, but apart from a chemical analysis I would 
not say what the specific substance was.” 
With the light thrown upon them by chemistry, I 
stated without hesitation that I believed them to be 
due to tartar-emetic. I shall refer to this analysis here- 
after, and show how absolutely certain its results were. 
Dr. Wood, from his vantage-posts in Philadelphia 
and at the trial-table for forming an accurate diagno- 
sis, attributed the condition to “ overcrowding the 
stomach with beef-tea; ” and in order to get rid of a 
circumstance so prejudicial to his view of the case as 
the “ sharp burning pain in the throat extending to 
the stomach,” of which Mr. Van Ness complained 
to Dr. Williams, he adopts the easy course of omitting 
this part of the description. 
According to Dr. Wood’s account, Mr. Van Ness 
felt, after the second dose of beef-tea, a “sensation re- 
sembling heartburn,” whereas these words were really 
used not to describe the effect of the beef-tea, but that 
experienced in the early morning after taking a cup 
of tea for breakfast. 
In still another case has Dr. Wood misrepresented 
the testimony that he criticises, in order to make oc- 
casion for censuring the State’s witnesses. On page 
170 of the Medical Record he affirms that Dr. Williams 
and Dr. Chew “ stated that they recognized the case as 
poisoning at the time of its occurrence.” No such 
statement was anywhere made, or is to be found in the 
testimony. Dr. Williams and myself were both struck 
with the resemblance between Mr. Van Ness’s symptoms 
and those of strychnia poisoning; but in the urgent 
necessity of giving relief we did not immediately form 
the definite opinion that the condition was certainly 
due to strychnia. The circumstances in which we en- 
countered the case were such as to render it almost in- 20 
conceivable that poison had been given; and so far 
from being reprehensible, it is creditable to a physi- 
cian’s humanity that he does not too suddenly arrive at 
the conclusion to which we were ultimately forced. 
In such circumstances opinions do not immediately 
crystallize into definite shape. 
Let it be remembered, however, as a very important 
fact, that the treatment adopted at this stage of the 
case, viz., the administration, first of an emetic and 
afterwards of chloroform and chloral, was precisely 
what we would have used had we known with the 
most perfect certainty that strychnia had been taken. 
It was precisely the treatment which in a number of 
reported cases of undoubted strychnia poisoning has 
been the means of saving life. 
In another place Dr. Wood asserts that “ Dr. Chew 
went so far as to testify that the proper treatment of 
tartar-emetic poisoning was the free exhibition of 
prussic acid. ’’ 
I regret to be compelled to say of this statement 
that it is deliberately untrue, and is a manifest perver- 
sion of my words, made with the intent of invalidat- 
ing my opinion and placing me in a false position. In 
answer to a question, 1 had stated that prussic acid 
might be serviceable in allaying the irritation of the 
stomach caused by tartar-emetic, an opinion which 
can be supported by the highest authority. But this 
assertion is utterly different from that which Dr. Wood 
attributes to me. 
I shall refer to this matter again in connection with 
the evidences of Dr. Wood's imperfect information 
upon professional subjects. 
Again, on page 170 of the MEDrcAL Record, the fol- 
lowing passage occurs : “ The reasons these gentlemen 
(Drs. Williams and Chew) gave for their opinion did 
not possess much clearness of detail, and have passed, 21 
to a great extent, from my memory.” It is scarcely 
necessary to comment on the utter worthlessness of a 
criticism, the data for which the critic has forgotten at 
the very time of writing it; but I must call attention 
to a more serious fault shown in this passage than a 
defective memory. He goes on to say: “Dr. Chew, 
however, gave as one of the mainstays of his opinion, 
“ the loss of consciousness during the convulsions.’’'1 Here 
again the perversion of my words is “gross as a moun- 
tain, open, palpable.” 
What I had in truth said was, that among other in- 
dications of strychnia poisoning the clearness of the 
patient’s mind was noticeable, consciousness being lost 
only during the convulsions. A more egregious misre- 
presentation could not have been devised. With such 
manipulation of testimony, and such separation of 
words from their context, any sentiment, however ab- 
surd, may be put in the mouth of a witness. 
The foregoing illustrations must be abundantly suffi- 
cient to prove the assertion that Dr. Wood’s account 
of the case is utterly unreliable. 
It remains to show that it is invalidated still further 
by his want of acquaintance with the subjects upon 
which he writes; and it is to be observed that this ig- 
norance is displayed in matters about which, as a pro- 
fessed toxicologist, he might have been expected to be 
informed. 
Dr. Wood is evidently wholly unaware of the appli- 
cation of prussic acid for the relief of gastric irritation 
caused by tartar-emetic. He has apparently never read 
the well-known articles upon pneumonia by Dr. C. J. 
B. Williams in the Library of Practical Medicine, and 
in the Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine ; or perhaps 
his confessedly unretentive memory has forgotten them. 
In the former article the following passage occurs:— 
“ The first dose of tartarized antimony commonly causes vomiting; if this should not cease, two or 
three drops of the diluted hydrocyanic acid will 
generally stop it.” * And in the Cyclopaedia of 
Practical Medicine the same author thus writes: 
“ Where the vomiting from tartarized antimony be- 
comes obstinate and urgent, we can confidently re- 
commend the addition of a drop or two of hydrocy- 
anic acid to each dose of the medicine.” f 
It would be well for Dr. Wood to ponder these pas- 
sages. 
Let it be observed that it was simply as against 
gastric irritation that the prussic acid was given to Mr. 
Van Ness, and as thus employed it was very beneficial. 
On the following day, when great sedatiop occurred, 
its use was not thought of. 
Dr. Wood’s reading is very limited, it would seem, 
even in the literature of the subject which he professes 
to make a specialty. “ Every medical man knows, or 
ought to know,” he says, “that there is a universally 
recognized antidote to tartar-emetic.” His reference 
is no doubt to tannic acid, and he seems wholly un- 
aware that the claims of this agent to be an effective 
antidote to tartar-emetic have been much controverted ; 
as, for instance, by that distinguished teacher Prof. 
Stilffi, who, in his work upon Therapeutics, thus writes: 
“In poisoning by tartar-emetic it is recommended to 
give infusions of vegetable astringents, such as cin- 
chona, galls, green tea, etc. But the best authorities 
deny the efficacy of these astringent substances.” f 
Inasmuch, however, as Dr. Wood refused to re- 
cognize the authority of Prof. George B. Wood in 
questions of toxicology, Avhen it was quoted on the 
stand against his opinions, he may equally disregard 
* Lib. Pract. Med., vol. iii., p. 233. t Cyclop. Pract. Med., vol. iii., 
p. (128. 
tStilld’s Therapeutics and Materia Medica, 3d edit., vol. ii., p. 386. 23 
that of the present incumbent of the Chair of Theory 
and Practice of Medicine in the University of Penn- 
sylvania. Possibly these eminent medical men may 
share, in his estimation, the common fate of prophets 
in their own country. 
I would refer him, therefore, to the following pas- 
sage from Pereira, a most weighty authority on any 
subject connected with the chemistry of drugs: “ Nut- 
galls are recommended as an antidote in cases of 
poisoning by emetic tartar, but I very much doubt 
their efficacy.” * 
The prominent clinical facts of this noted case 
have now been sufficiently set forth; as also the opin- 
ions pronounced upon those facts by the State’s medi- 
cal witnesses, and the grounds for those opinions. 
It remains to say a few words in regard to the 
chemical analysis which resulted in the discovery of 
tartar-emetic in the tumbler of milk-punch prepared 
for Mr. Van Ness. This analysis must stand or fall 
with that which was made of the remains of Glen. 
Ketclium, the results of which were brought forward 
in the former trial. 
The substances to be analyzed were put into Prof. 
Aikin’s hands at the same time; the methods pur- 
sued in the two examinations were substantially the 
same, and the results identical. Not one word was 
said to suggest a suspicion of the presence of tartar- 
emetic; and so, guided by a brief sketch of the case, 
Prof. Aikin was led to search for strychnia and ar- 
senious acid. These he did not find, but in his search 
he detected antimony in both the materials submitted 
to him. 
His conclusions were ratified and confirmed by Prof. 
Mallet, of the University of Virginia; by Dr. Craig, 
* Mat. Med., vol. ii., p. 32fi. The same passage occurs in an abridged 
edition of Pereira, edited by Dr. H. C. Wood himself, page 410. the chemist in charge of the laboratory of the Sur- 
geon-General’s office in Washington, and by Prof. 
Tonry, of the Maryland Institute in this city. 
The chemical experts for the defence professed to 
dissent from Prof. Aikin’s conclusions on two grounds; 
1st, because the same results as to color reaction could 
be gotten, as they alleged, from material known not to 
contain antimony; and 2dly, because antimony in the 
metallic form was not produced. 
As to the former objection, I have elsewhere shown 
its utter fallacy, and shall not again discuss the ques- 
tion here.* Suffice it to say, that while professing to 
follow the same processes as those used by Prof. Aikin, 
these chemists deliberately omitted to apply what he 
regarded as a crucial test.f 
As to the second objection, let the following letter 
be its sufficient and final answer:— 
Maryland Institute, Chemical Department, 
Baltimore, June 2d, 1878. 
Prop. S. C. Chew : 
Dear Sir,—I still retain in my possession the metal- 
lic antimony which I obtained from the viscera of Gene- 
ral Ketchum, and which I carried to Annapolis in Janu- 
ary, 1872, and held ready for exhibition to the jury and 
chemical experts for the defence in the first trial of Mrs. 
E. G. Wharton. This antimony I am ready to submit to an 
examination to be made in my presence by any chemist 
of known integrity and standing in his profession. I 
* Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal, July, 1872. 
t Dr. Reese, when on the witness-stand, said in response to a ques- 
tion from the Court, “I remember that Dr. Aikin ami J'rnf. Mal- 
let testified that the solution should be kept acid; I do not remember 
whether I kept mine acidulated.” 
Court.—“ Was the solution you treated with sulphide of ammonium 
nn acid or alkaline solution?” 
Witness.—“I don't know.” That is, while professing to follow Prof. 
Aikin, he could not say whether in the crucial test of the experiment 
he had followed him or not! have also specimens of crystals of tartar-emetic gotten 
from the same material as that from which I obtained 
the metallic antimony, and hold them ready for a similar 
examination. I would add that during the trial I offered 
to one of the counsel for the defence, to be examined by 
their chemical experts, a portion of the viscera, which I 
had retained, but my offer was not accepted. 
Very truly yours, 
Wm. P. Tonry, 
Prof. Anal, and Appld. Chemistry, MU. Institute. 
I have myself examined with the microscope the 
specimens of tartar-emetic obtained by Prof. Tonry, 
and have found them to correspond with the rhom- 
bic crystals of the salt, delineated in Prof. Worm- 
ley’s work on the Micro-Chemistry of Poisons. Prof. 
Tonry’s analysis was not finished within the time 
allowed by the court, and therefore its complete 
results were, from a technicality, not admitted as evi- 
dence. They were, however, brought into court, and 
offered for exhibition, though in the absence of the 
jury; hence they belong to the scientific record of the 
case. It is, of course, evident that they supplement, 
and at the same time fully corroborate, Prof. Aikin's 
analysis. 
In concluding this portion of the subject, I assert 
that no proposition in chemistry is more conclusively 
demonstrated than that the viscera of Gen. Ketchum 
contained antimony. It challenges the detection of 
a flaw, and to deny it, in the face of the proof by 
which it is substantiated, is to court the reputation of 
being either hopelessly ignorant or shamelessly dis- 
honest. 
I repeat that the milk-punch prepared for Mr. Van 
Ness was subjected to the same analysis as the viscera 
above mentioned, yielded the same results, and was 
thus perfectly proved to contain antimony. I)r. Wood quotes in both of his papers, apparently 
with great satisfaction, an <*xtract from the new edi- 
tion of Dr. Taylor’s work upon Medical Jurispru- 
dence, which requires a brief notice. The case of 
Gen. Ketchum is mentioned in this extract, and the 
extraordinary statement is made in it, that “ but for 
the alleged discovery after death of tartar-emetic, no 
suspicion of poison would probably have arisen.” 
Now it is certain that Dr. Taylor has received a 
report of the first trial of Mrs. Wharton. In that re- 
port it is made perfectly clear that, so far from tho 
discovery of tartar-emetic having given rise to the 
suspicion of poison, it was the suspicion founded upon 
the symptoms and history of the case that led to the 
chemical examination. The medical opinion was not 
the consequence, but the cause of the chemical analy- 
sis. 
This dilemma is therefore presented; either Dr. 
Taylor had not read the report of the trial in his 
hands, when he wrote the sentence quoted above, or 
he had read it. If he had not read it, he expressed 
an opinion, involving the professional reputation of 
medical men, upon a subject about which he had not 
used the means at his command to inform himself. 
If, on the other hand, he had read it, then his opinion 
is in direct contravention of a fact within his own 
knowledge; for it is distinctly stated in the report of 
the trial, that the suspicion of poison antedated the 
chemical analysis, and therefore could not have taken 
its origin from it. 
If, as a third supposition, Dr. Taylor, having read 
the trial, has forgotten or overlooked the fact referred 
to, then he owes it to justice, and to the physicians 
whom by implication he has censured, to acknowledge 
his error. Apart, moreover, from considerations of 
justice, the credit of Dr. Taylor’s work is concerned; for if so signal a mistake has been made in the report 
of one case, what valrni can be attached to that of any 
other in the book ? 
The eminent authority of Dr. Taylor is fully con- 
ceded, but it seems clear that upon this subject his 
opinion has been formed hastily, and upon one-sided 
evidence, and gives no valid support whatever to Dr. 
Wood’s statements.* 
In his article in Lippincott's Magazine, Dr. Wood 
speaks of certain evils in the prevalent system of medi- 
cal expert evidence in this country. That evils exist 
is undoubtedly true; and no more forcible illustration 
of them could be found than is presented by the trial 
under consideration. The true explanation of them, 
which Dr. Wood is perhaps scarcely prepared to 
admit, is set forth in the following very pointed terms 
in a new edition of Wharton and Stille's Medical Ju- 
risprudence. 
It is commended to his very careful consideration 
when he is next asked to assume the part of volunteer 
medical expert, paid to sustain a “ side.” 
“The radical defect,” says this book, “of our pres- 
ent Anglo-American practice, in this respect, is the 
volunteer position of experts, which makes them, to a 
large measure, the mouthpieces of a party who often 
only selects them because their preascertained views 
suit his purposes; or who only presents them with 
such materials as subserve his interests. In what way 
this defect can be removed is one of the most import- 
ant questions to which social science can now be ad- 
dressed.” 
I have now completed my task, and have discharged 
* How Dr. Taylor may have received a one-sided account of the 
testimony in the trial is perhaps explained by the fact that the new 
edition of his work on Medical Jurisprudence is edited in America by 
Dr. J. J. Reese. what I believed to be a duty binding upon me by rea- 
son of the opportunities I have had for knowing the 
whole history of this remarkable case. I have ex- 
amined it solely from a medical point of view', and 
have not discussed the issues of guilt or innocence, 
which can have no place in medical questions. So far 
as these are concerned, the position of the medical 
witnesses for the State w'ould be wholly unaffected, 
whether the patient’s condition were due to accident 
or design. 
I have felt that it would be wrong, with my know- 
ledge of the case, to allow' a misrepresentation of the 
facts to go upon record as an undisputed narrative, 
and to suffer erroneous medical opinions upon these 
facts to remain unexposed. 
If my words have seemed unduly harsh, I regret the 
necessity of speaking plainly; and I w ould plead in 
their defence the dictum of one who is equally an au- 
thority in logic and in morals : 
“ Sharpness of speech,” says Dr. Isaac Barrow, “ may 
sometimes be used in defence of truth, and impugn- 
ing errors of bad consequence; especially when it 
concerneth the interest of truth that the reputation 
and authority of its adversaries should somewhat be 
abased.” 
Baltimore, June 25th, 1873.