Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

occurred on post-obit examinations in the island of Bombay; and which will, I trust, uphold me in making this remark. The brain was, in these cases, chiefly the congested organ, the liver sometimes appearing to have no congestion whatever; and hence the inactivity produced in the brain, by the nauseating state of the stomach, must have been greatly augmented by oppression.'

Mr. Richardson reviewed the medicines-their nature, their usefulness and harmlessness, as proved by all the witnesses for the prisoner. The testimony of Mrs. Williams, a female in delicate health, who had taken forty-six courses of Thomson's medicines, and with benefit, within the past six months, and her very full testimony in reference to her treatment and success with other females who had used them. The case of Mr. Lycett and his young man; Mr. Shumaker, his wife and sister; Mr. Needles; Mrs. Lydia Peters of a disease pronounced incurable, etc., and Miss H. Y. Williamson, who attributed her recovery from the very verge of death to the skill of the prisoner. The testimony of every individual knowing the character of the prisoner, was that he was competent and attentive, and this was the character of the prisoner for at least the last four years without one exception, by the united testimony of the witnesses in the city of Baltimore; to which was superadded the testimony of Lambert S. Beck, to the practice of the prisoner in the city of Washington previously; and, nothing on the part of the testimony for the state went to show that the prisoner was lacking in attention in the case before the Court. In fine, the prisoner had been proved by abundant testimony to be competent, successful, attentive, tender, and to possess all the qualifications necessary to recommend him to public confidence; and if even in a few cases he was unsuccessful, it could not be laid to his charge as a fault, but to the impotency and fallibility attendant upon the exercise of the best judgment in such cases. If such were not the correct view, then, a physician of the most pre-eminent talents might, from malice, or a spirit of rivalry, be brought to the bar, and, to say the least

of it, be subject to much vexation and loss of time, if not to punishment and loss of character-when the utmost exertions in his power had been made to insure success.

In a great English case,11 the prisoner was indicted for the murder of Ann Delacroix, at the parish of St. James, Westminster; he was also charged with manslaughter by the Coroner's inquistion. Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough (in summing up), said: "There has not been a particle of evidence which goes to convict the prisoner of the crime of murder; but it is still for you to consider, whether the evidence goes so far as to make out a case of manslaughter. To substantiate that charge, the prisoner (a surgeon) must have been guilty of criminal misconduct, arising either from the grossest ignorance, or the most criminal inattention. One or other of these is necessary to make him guilty of that criminal negligence and misconduct, which is essential to make out a case of manslaughter. It does not appear that in this case, there was any want of attention on his part."

MR. STEWART, FOR THE DEFENSE.

Mr. Stewart. A few years since I was engaged in a suit in which was seen arrayed not a few physicians of ordinary intellect, and reputation for acuteness, opposed to each other, but a marshalling of learned professor against learned professor of different colleges, but of the same school in deadly conflict, bringing with them all the talent, research, and erudition of which they were capable, and each supported in his position by witnesses of acknowledged merit in the practice of medicine, but with views of treatment, although in some points alike, essentially different from each other. The consequence was, an elaborate investigation was entered into, to prove (what a Court and jury will never be competent to decide upon) whether of the views and treatment which are almost as various as there are physicians, the accusers or the accused are right. A Court can only decide where there is

[blocks in formation]

manifest inattention to the plain duties of propriety in the administration of medicines undeniably pernicious, and where there is palpably a recklessness and want of attention, and gross ignorance. For where modes of treatment and preference of means only, are the subjects of contention there are such a variety of contradictory views in the medical world, that they themselves, are at constant issue with each other, and to leave the decision of correctness between their discrepancies to the judgment of such as had not been able properly to examine the whole ground of the controversy, would be truly putting dangerous prerogatives in the hands of the ignorant and unskilful, in such matters; for, gentlemen of the jury, "who shall decide, when doctors disagree,"

The case before you is not of the character I have just alluded to here is not an embattling of Thomsonian with Thomsonian-not with them is to be found theory after theory, and system after system chasing each other in interminable succession until they vie in number with the stars in the firmament-no, gentlemen, they have one system and one mode of practice, which, notwithstanding the variations necessary to meet the attacks of the various forms of disease, are simple in their form, innocent and salutary in their effects, and adopted, received and administered, without a single reservation by thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands of our fellow citizens throughout our widely extended country, of all ranks, conditions and grades of talent, as such, without dissent or controversy; this is not a too highly colored assertion -go where you will-east, west, north, south, you will find the disciples of Dr. Thomson scattered abroad-a large and multiplying class of useful individuals-question them respecting the system and medicines of Samuel Thomson, and they are, with an undivided voice, pronounced innocent and powerful in the banishment of disease and death. Truth has been truly said, in the emphatic language of a nervous writer, to have "but one side," and the universality of their reception by those best acquainted with the system and practice of Dr. Thomson, seem to go far to prove them true. I am not

here for the defense of any system, but to defend my client against the charge of manslaughter as preferred against him in the words of the indictment-the system of Dr. Thomson, the book, with all his assertions contained in it, is before the public-edition after edition has been printed, the medical faculty have access to it, as is instanced by the book in court, owned by Dr. Cole; and they have not been able or undertaken to controvert what is there published. Until that takes place they cannot complain of an injustice too slight for comment. Reference has been had to the trial of Samuel Thomson in Massachusetts. That case was got up by a Dr. French for the purpose of putting down by persecution, what he had failed to do by his practice. The same gentleman, not long afterwards, became a fugitive from justice for his misdeeds. Such should ever be the fate of the unprincipled tyrannical persecutor. Look at the peculiar situation in which Thomson was placed, and then say if there be not some excuse-some palliation for the causticity of his remarks. Listen to Thomson's account of the treatment he has received, which he prefaces by a quotation from Dr. Harvey, pp. 13, 14: "By what unaccountable perversity in our frame does it appear, that we set ourselves against anything that is new? Can any behold, without scorn, such drones of physicians, and after the space of so many hundred year's experience and practice of their predecessors, not one single medicine has been detected that has the least force, directly to prevent, to oppose, and expel a continued fever? Should any, by a more sedulous observation, pretend to make the least step towards the disdiscovery of such remedies, their hatred and envy would swell against him, as a legion of devils against virtue; the whole society will dart their malice at him, and torture him with all the calumnies imaginable, without sticking at anything that should destroy him, root and branch. For he who professes to be a reformer of the art of physic, must resolve to run the hazard of a martyrdom, of his reputation, life and estate."

Thomson then goes on to state what has taken place in his own person: "The treatment which the writer has received

from some of the learned physicians, since his discovery of the remedy for fever, and various other diseases, is a proof of the truth of this last saying of Dr. Harvey. They have imprisoned him, and charged him with everything cruel and unjust; though upon a fair trial, their violent dealings have come down upon their heads; while he has not only been proved innocent before the Court, but useful; having relieved many which the other physicians had given over to die." Again, (page 9) "This (his success in practice) greatly disturbed the learned doctors, and some of them undertook to destroy me, by reporting that I used poison; though they made no mention of my using their instruments of deathmercury, opium, ratsbane, nitre and the lancet. I considered it my duty to withstand them, though I found my overthrow was what they aimed at. A plan was once laid to take me in the night, but I escaped. Next, I was indicted, as though I had given poison, and a bill brought against me for wilful murder. I was bound in irons, and thrust into prison, to be kept there through the winter, without being allowed bail. I petitioned for, and obtained, a special court to try the cause, and was honorably acquitted, after forty days imprisonment. I maintained my integrity in the place where my persecution began. In five years, while vindicating this new and useful discovery, I lost five thousand dollars, besides all the persecution, trouble, loss of health and reproach, which has been in connection with the losses." What is there inexcusable in his retort upon such men? My colleague has shown that the attorney general has quoted but a part of Thomson's views, and by the context Thomson has not been guilty of such falsity as he is charged with.

Thomson enters largely into a description of his system and practice, and quotes considerably from medical authors respecting the character of their own medicines-is there anything improper in this? He undertakes to recommend his system and practice, on the ground of a thirty years' experience of their usefulness. This he tells the purchasers of a right to use them in his book. Is one of the many pur

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »