ion,
but of an individual who had been advanced from the position of
hospital steward at Washington to that of professor of chemistry in
a small local institute at Baltimore. This professor, when on the
witness-stand, was singularly confused as to his weights and measures,
and finally shared the ignominy of his predecessor. The defence had
several chemists at Annapolis of world-wide reputation and unspotted
integrity. If the prosecution really believed that General Ketchum had
been poisoned, if they really did expect tartar emetic to be found,
why did they not allow the presence of these gentlemen at the
analysis, and thereby ensure the condemnation of Mrs. Wharton? The
conviction is irresistible that they were _afraid of the truth_--that
they were simply determined to procure the desired verdict at
all hazards and by any means. Yet this was the procedure for the
completion of which the court suspended the trial for two days,
because, as Chief-Justice Miller stated from the bench, "it thought
the ends of justice demanded it"! Is any further evidence needed of
the strange ideas, of the perversion of truth and justice, which have
grown out of the American method of using expert testimony?

Before leaving this trial I desire to quote from advanced sheets of
the edition of Dr. Taylor's great work on medical jurisprudence, now
passing through the press. Reviewing the trial in London with that
freedom from bias which the isolation of distance produces, he
says: "The trial lasted fifty-two days, and an astonishing amount
of evidence was brought forward by the defence and prosecution,
apparently owing to the high social position of the parties, for there
is nothing, medically speaking, which might not have been settled in
forty-eight hours. The general died after a short illness, but the
symptoms, taken as a whole, _bore no resemblance_ to those observed in
poisoning with antimony; and but for the alleged discovery after death
of tartar emetic in the stomach, _no suspicion of poisoning_ would
probably have arisen.... The chemical evidence," he adds, "does not
conflict with the pathological evidence, for _it failed to show_ with
clearness and distinctness _the presence_ and proportion of poison
said to have been found. The _evidence that antimony was really there_
was not satisfactory, and that twenty grains were in the stomach
wholly unproven."[18]

What would have been the course of this trial if expert testimony were
estab