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
established upon proper principles? Professor Aiken having shown his
complete incompetency in the Schoeppe case, the analysis would have
been entrusted to some skillful chemist, who by failing to discover
poison would have established the innocence of Mrs. Wharton, or by
bringing positive results into court have ensured conviction; or,
Dr. Aiken having made the analysis, and having broken all the laws of
toxicological evidence, his testimony would have been ruled out, and
the case dismissed because the bungling of the State's witness had
destroyed the evidences of guilt or of innocence.

In January, 1873, Mrs. Wharton was tried at Annapolis for attempting
to poison Eugene Van Ness. The facts of the case are briefly as
follows: Mr. Van Ness, whose relations with the Wharton family had
been extremely intimate for many years, was a bank-clerk, but during
the spring and early summer of 1871, besides attending to his regular