M EXPOSITION
rjEW
m.
f0?
of thp:
m
TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS

USED IN

THOMAS J. WHITE'S LATE PAMPHLET,
am
ON THE
L
DUGAN  CASE.
j/^/V>w U . vA^Kjuvw 7\
G3>
V ill,
v ill-i
v 1111/




am
T. VV. USTICK, PRINTER, 59 MAIN ST.
ST. LOUIS, MO,

   June, 1847.
^
 
 
             IN EXPOSITION


                 OF THE


      TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS


                /USED IN;


THOMAS J. WHITE'S LATE PAMPHLET,


                ON THE


         DUGAN CASE.
T. W. USTICK, PRINTER, 59 MAIN ST.
ST. LOUIS, WLO.,
   June, 1847. 
 
TO  THE PUBLIC.
   To those readers whose patience permits them to be so interested
 in this controversy, as to read the numerous  publications  which it
 has originated, perhaps an explanation  is due, why this refutation
 has not sooner  appeared.   It is, simply, because I have had more
 important duties to  attend, and the state of  my health for several
 weeks  past, has retarded  the preparation of  this  reply.   The
 materials I here employ, have accumulated  on my hands during
 the past  four months, and I  had contemplated an  earlier use of
 them, but unavoidable delays interfered with my intentions.
   Had  this controversy been  pursued on my assailant's side, with
 an honest desire to  present  facts to readers, perhaps concessions
 might  have been demanded, errors discovered, misconceptions
 corrected, and thus  some good end arrived  at.  But the contro*
 vcrsy, with  him, has  been but a low and degraded engagement in
 personalities—a  grossly vindictive effort to asperse  and villify
 those he assails.   His tone and materials prove, that his end and
 aim is not to arrive at the facts of a disputed case, but, with false-
 hood, prevarication,  and every knavish shift  by which a pettifog-
 ging spirit would be impelled, to endeavor to  mortify and injure
 those who hi.ve honestly and conscientiously  coincided  in their
 views of an obscure  subject.   Issues that  have  not been proposed
 I cannot take up, and I now  only meet those of a personal nature,
 which do not properly belong to, nor satisfactorily decide what
 should properly have been  the  points  in this  discussion.   The
 medical questions of the case have been entirely shut out of view,
 and all that has been  proposed  to me  is, to show  whether any
 thing put forth by my assailant be really worthy of credit.  Even
 were  the testimony he  has sought, correctly published  by him, it
 could cast no disrepute  on  those  stating the opposite, for varying
 statements  might  have  been honestly  given,  and circumstances
 might be brought to show  that what my assailant has published, i.s
 but the  unreflecting admissions  of conversations — the partisan
assertions of incompetent and prejudiced  witnesses, or the ingeni-
 ously  selected passages  of gossipping rumor and garrulous tattle —
not well-digested, cross-examined, sifted  evidence,  which  alone
 hould he opposed to testimony, given  under the solemn  under- 
                              1
standing of an oath.  But, so regardless of decency and integrity is
my assailant, that whatever testimony he has offered, I herein prove
to be grossly falsified and perverted by him.   To one who adopts
such a vile and calumnious mode of gratifying  his malignant spite, I
feel that I am  in no great measure called on to reply, and I might
have confidently trusted the decision of the questions at issue, to the
unbiassed judgments of an intelligent public—to their estimate of
the relative characters and  standing of those assailed and those
defending.  But as my assailant's pamphlet has gone forth, where
his infamous arts  may be unknown, and as it may be.called up
hereafter,  when  his character and  acts  are forgotten, I have
deemed it but proper to put the seal of exposition and  proof of
his turpitude, and herein is it given.                 *
                                STEPHEN W. ADREON,
  St. Louis, June, 1847„ 
EXPOSITION.
   On the appearance of Thos. ,J. White's late pamphlet against
 Drs. Beaumont, Brown, Carpenter, McPheeters, Reyburn, myself,
 and a host of others, I was advised by friends to take no notice of
 it,  leaving the well known character of the  assailant to prove  a
 defence; but on reflccling that his slanders have been sent abroad,
 where his infamy is not known, and that in future  years, when he
 and his baseness  are alike forgotten,  those printed  falsehoods,  if
 not refuted, might be brought up, to the annoyance of  those who
 have incurred his abuse through their professional  courtesies to
 me, I have  determined  to place  the means of refutation in  their
 power, although the profession and public may well be wearied by
 the controversy.
   It will be remarked by the readers of White's pamphlet, that in
 no instance does he bring any proof against the veracity o[ those
 he  attacks, except by statements, made from the memory  of parties
 who had no motive for bearing these  things so minutely in mind,
 through a lapse of six or seven yeais,  and  some  of whom could
 scarcely have  understood  our language at the time of the pretend-
 ed  occurrences.   Now  this  unscrupulous assailant must think his
 readers very  credulous, to  accept as  true, statements  upon  the
 minute circumstances of disease, made by those not of the medi-
 cal profession, and  therefore not  habituated to  distinguish and
 remember  such  events,  when, at the time he  was  on oath, he
 declared himself unable to testify to an important  fact in the case,
 it had " occurred so long ago."  It will further be remarked, that
 White never touches the evidence given on the trial, and although
 he  has examined counsels1 notes, he  has  been unable to bring
 forward a little in his defence, save disjointed passages  of conver-
 sations, held with some females who visited  Mary Dugan, when ill,
 in 1840.   From communication with tkose persons he names, I am
 enabled  to  give the  following contradictions of the assertions in
 his pamphlet, and  prove his barefaced turpitude and mendacity.
  Mrs. N. Chiles, Sr.. is quoted by White, as  authority,  (speaking
 as if from personal knowledge,) for the following assertions:   On
 page fi, of his pamphlet, " that I (Dr. Adreon) used  abusive lan-
 guage to Mrs. Dugan, and grossly maltreated and neglected her;"
 on  page 9, that  she (Mrs. Childs) told me "before I operated, that
 there was nothing  but bowels and contents in the tumor, and  not
 to cut;" on pages  11 and IS, White's entire catalogue of charges
are in general terms repeated, and  Mrs. Childs  represented as
authority for them.
  I have received  the most positive assurances from Mr. N. Childs,
Sr., that these assertions  of While's are false, and unauthorized,
and he promised  that a public  contradiction should  be given to 
<;
them, in tho Medical  Journal, or some other paper.  These assu-
rances Mr. C.  also repeated  to others, besides myself.   He stated
"that he  had spoken  with Mrs. Childs on the  subject." and says
emphatically, that  "she never visited Mrs.  Dugan  until after the
operation,  and then  by request of Rev.  Mr. Light;  that she was
never at  Mrs.  Dugan's when the  doctors  were there, but once,
when she  sat in the dark part of the room; that she had never seen
me, to know me, (Dr.  A.) previous to my late visit, (a. short time after
Dr. While's pamphlet appeared,)—had never spoken with me  on any
subject, and had never heard mc, or any other physician, use abu-
sive language to Mrs. Dugan."  Mr. Childs also  stated to me, that
a paper had been  brought to  his house for his wife's signature, by
Mrs. Dugan's daughter, previous  to White's publication appearing;
that he told  her  (Mrs. C.) that the  paper never came from Mrs.
Dugan, and not to sign it.  He expressed  his indignation at the
use White had  made of Mrs.  Child's name, and  requested I would
not bring  it further into the controversy.   As Mr. C. has been dila-
tory in giving his  promised published denial to the assertions of
White, 1  am reluctantly  compelled  to disregard his request, and
use the statements he  made to mc.   White, I understand, asserts
thai he has Mrs. Child's signature to what he has stated, but I also
understand, from a different source, that he claims as his authority,
Mr. N. Childs, Jr., who in turn also denies his agency; so  reports
contradict each other. It is sufficient  for  me,  that I have been
exonerated, by  Mr. Childs, and the statements of White denied by
him on his wife's  authority.  In  these  assertions, given  as  Mrs.
Child's, White  grossly exposes that  lady to contradiction  by her
own testimony, for he  represents her as  present at my operation,
when it  is clearly shewn,  that Mr. Light,  himself, by whose
request Mrs. C. visited Mrs. Dugan, never heard of or visited Mrs.
D. until some days after  the  operation.  (Sec Mr. LighCs letter, in
White's pamphlet.)  Any fraud or  falsehood  employed  in the mat-
ter by White, must now be settled  between  him and Mr.  Childs.
So  much  for the  falsification of one witness' testimony.  It will
be seen that the other testimony White published, is as perverted
and false as that represented by him  as Mrs. Child's.
h F. E. Robinson and wife, arc quoted on  page  6, of White's
pamphlet  as saying, " Drs. White and Knox did not seek  to have
Dr. Adreon discharged, or to have themselves retained."  On page
7, they are represented as saying, " The wound in  the right side
was discharging the contents of  the  bowels the day she started  up
the country, and she  was very  ill  not only then, but during the
month of  June, and  up to July  13th, 1840, to  our  certain  know-
ledge was never cured.  Wc  saw her off on the dray, and saw the
wound the day she started."   On page 11, White says " in addi-
tion to this, F.  E.  Robinson  and wife, state, emphatically, that Dr.
Adreon used abusive language towards her, and very, much neg-
lected her, etc.  etc."  On page  13,  White's pamphlet, is  the fol-
lowing : " F. E. Robinson and Elizabeth Robinson, say:  the fact* 
t
as contained in the letters of the  Coxes, we know to be true in
almost every particular ; in every feature  of any importance, at
any rate, as read  by us in the Medical and Surgical  Journal  for
July, 18-16.''
   That the foregoing  are  gross misrepresentations, may be seen
from  the following statements made  by Mr. and Mrs. Robinson,
and signed by Mr. R, for himself and wife—Mrs. R. being present.
F. E. Robinson being asked by Dr. Adreon, questions in reference
to certain statements published in Dr.  VV bite's pamphlet as coming
from him, answereth thus—In reference to the statements on page
6: " Does  not know whether Dr.  White wished  Dr.  Adreon dis-
charged; knows nothing positive  in relation to  the  matter."  In
reference to those  on  page 7: "Frequently saw the  wound until
about the time she left;  doe? not recollect seeing it the day she
left, nor seeing her  upon the dray; the wound had healed up, and
opened three or more times."  In  reference  to page 11: "All
about  the  abusive  language, was  heard from  Mrs.  Dugan and
others; never heard Dr. Adreon abuse her."   In reference  to page
13: " Dr. White read a number of articles, to which we gave a
general assent, so far as we knew;  with regard  to Mrs. Dugan's
leaving,  by whose  advice,  and  by whose aid, I have no personal
knowledge, it being derived from*Mrs. Dugan."
         Signed,              "F.  E.  ROBINSON, and Wife."
   February 1st,  1847.
  The passages of White's pamphlet above referred to, were road to
the parties  in presence of Dr.B.R.MiMiell, and a copy of the above
left in Mr.  Robinson's hands.  Mr. Robinson, in the  course of the
conversation before Dr. M.,  also stated, " that he had  not  been
acquainted with Dr. White, previous  to his call, and  first learned
from  him that the  Mary Dugan case was  the subject of contro-
versy; that  the manner of Dr. White evidenced to him  that he
was actuated in the matter by strong personal feelings against Dr.
Adreon; that he  felt incensed at Dr. White, for his  perversion of
the statements of himself and wife."   Mrs. Robinson also stated,
that she " saw Mrs. Dugan a day or two previous to  her going up
the river, and that she was then  in considerable  pain, because the
wound was closed, and she supposed the matters within were press-
ing on it."   This last  remark of Mrs. R., shews the same  state of
symptoms to have existed  in July, 1840, as existed in June and
July, 1844, according to the testimony of several physicians given
on the trial, who examined  her at the  latter  pesiod.  It shews the
patient's condition to have  been  as Dr. Reyburn  supposed, a  short
time  after his last visit  to her, namely, after July 4th,  1840, and it
will also be seen that White's own witnesses not only shew him to
be a base  falsifier,  but  Mrs. R., from  positive knowledge, denies
the truth of the assertion of Mrs.  Dugan,  that  the  ulcer in her
groin had never closed, previous to her departure for the Missouri
river.
  Mrs. Stillwell is.  represented in While"*  pamphlet, page  6, as 
8
assenting,  that  "Mrs.  D. had been  grossly  neglected  by Dr.
Adreon;"  on page 7, that " Dr. A. remarked to  me (Mrs. S.) that
Mrs. Dugan was not  well, when she left St. Louis, in July, 1840,
and  never would be well;"  on  page 6, the following occurs: " Mrs;
Stillwell and Mrs. Burke allege, that  she  (Mrs. Dugan) had Leen
grossly neglected by Dr. A.;" and  again, on  page 11,  the same
charge is repeated  in  a different form,  thus-:  "Mrs.  Stillwell
remarks, that Drs. White and  Knox were called  in  at  her (Mrs.
D's special request, she alleging she had been grossly  neglected by
Dr. A.," etc. etc.; on page 18, Mrs. S. is represented, as  asserting
that I neglected Mrs. D. "for three days;" on page 13, Mrs. S. is
quoted as  stating, that "she knows  the statement in the letter of
Thomas and Ann Cox, to be true in every material fact."
  These representations of Mrs.  Still well's assertions,  might be
supposed from the manner White has quoted them, to be her writ-
ten statement of facts, gained from her personal knowledge of the
circumstances;  but Mrs. S. affirmed in presence of Mr.  Whittle-
sey, that she had signed no paper for Dr. White, and would never
again sign any paper,  as she  had once lost her all  by so doing.
The following  statements made by her' to me since White pub-
lished, in presence of Mr. C.C.Whittlesey and committed  to writing
by him, will further  enable readers to decide  what credit is  to be
attached to whatever White has published in his pamphlet.  Mrs.
Stillwell, says:  "that she  saw Dr. Adreon  at  Mrs. Dugan's more
than fifty times; never had any conversation with him that she recollects;
most of what she knows, was from what Mrs. Dugan said; did not
know that Dr. A. neglected  Mrs. Dugan.   Mrs. Dugan wished us
to send for Dr. White.  She (Mrs. Dugan) said that Dr. A. told
her she would never get well;  Dr. A. used to  come and  sec Mrs.
D., he did not talk  much, would examine her and  leave ;  good
many physicians came to  visit Mrs. D.; do not know that Dr. A.
told Mrs. D. that she  would  be better with  her children;  never
heard Dr. A. advise  Mrs.  D. to leave the city;  Mrs. Dugan told
me, that Dr. Adreon told  her, that  she would  be better with her
children, that she would be more quiet,'and less irritated."
  It will  be seen from the foregoing, that White has merely held
conversations with the witnesses he pretends to quote, and that he
has put whatever perverted construction would suit him, on what
they have said.  They know nothing from positive knowledge, that
goes to substantiate any charge he  has  brought against me; all
they know is but detached portions of information given them six
years ago  by Mary Dugan.
  On page 45, White  says, (in contradiction of my  assertion that
I never sought any testimony against  him, or others, in the Dugan
controversy,) " that C. Zoller, a worthy German, asserted in pres-
ence of------, that Dr. Adreon  called repeatedly to see him, for
the  purpose of eliciting testimony in the Dugan case."  This is
grossly false; I have repeatedly seen, and spoken with Zoller, at
bis  stall in the  market—have  purchased  of him, but that 1 ever 
0
called as  above asserted,  is, I repeat, false.   I have had  but one
conversation with him, and I am positive only one in which Mrs.
Dugan's name  occurred.  The following are the facts of the only
interview between  Z. and myself on  the  subject, and it occurred
before the trial, and not since, as would have to be the  case were
the assertion correct, to which my contradiction above referred to
was an answer.
   " 1 was present  when  Dr. Adreon asked Mr. Zoller if he told
Dr. White that he (Dr.  A.) had endeavored  to obtain testimony of
him, (Zoller.) against either Dr. White or Dr. Knox, in the case of
Mrs. Dugan ?  To  which  Zoller replied in  the negative.  Zoller
remarked, that he had lived in the same house  with Mrs. Dugan,
and that he did not think her a good  woman. Zoller said, that
Dr. Adreon  had only one conversation with him  about her, and
remarked to him (Z.) that  Mrs. Dugan had troubled him with a suit
by way of recompense for the services he  had rendered her.   Zol-
ler said that Dr. White  asked  him to call at his office, but he
declined doing'so.    Signed,     ROBERT M. JENNINGS."
   "January 22d, 1847."
   So it appears, that White elicits a fact from the German, namely,
that I had spoken with  him, exaggerates it,  and attaches his own
false inferenes  to suit his purpose.
   I will not weary myself, or readers, with  the  useless task  of
sifting or refuting  the  rest of  the testimony  White uses in  his
pamphlet.  It  bears on the  same  points as that  which I have
already exposed.  The  witnesses are not to  be  found by reference
to the directory, or by private  inquiry ; and what they testify is
not material, as they merely state what Mrs. Dugan has  told them,
and that in  such qualifying terms, as  indicate that their recollec-
tions of the matters are very vague indeed.   That these witnesses
make representations of what Mrs. Dugan stated in 1840, differing
with, and contradictory of, what she then told Drs. Beaumont,
Brown, Carpenter, Sykes, Reyburn, and  myself, only proves,  (if
statements really be as White represents them in  his pamphlet,)
that Mrs. D. varied in  her representations.   But as I have shown
White has  grossly  falsified, and maliciously perverted statements^
it is but fair to  infer, that his entire pamphlet is made up  of a tissue
of knavery  and mendacity, and  that the  witnesses I  have not
discussed, have had their relations perverted, to suit his malicious
purposes.   Drs. Beaumont, Brown, Carpenter, Sykes and Reyburn,
avow having heard Mrs.  Dugan detail the circumstances of her
disease, in 1840, and their accounts substantially  agree with my
own.  The  parties  quoted  by  White whom  I have thought it
unnecessary  to remark upon, are  not  persons of repute or in-
telligence.   They  were  probably those  whose prejudices were
raised against me by White's false  reports of the nature of Mary
Dugan's disease; a mob of gossips who joined in the clamor raised
about the case  in 1840, and whose tastes  would lead them to join
that side of  the question where censoriousness and slander would
                             2 
10
 be best gratified.  The standing of one party of such witnesses
 may be judged by a fact elicited on the trial of the suit of Mary
 Dugan against Drs.  Beaumont and Adreon.   Mrs. Waddingham,
 a witness  for  the prosecution,  testified  "that the patient (Mrs.
 Dugan) was a poor woman, occupying a garret room;  her landlord
 threatened to  turn her out of the house ; witness became respon-
 sible for the  rent, to  prevent this, as Dr. Adreon  said  it would
 endanger her  life to  remove her."   (See published report  of the
 trial.)  White informs us in his pamphlet, that it was  of the Myer
 family, Mrs. Reinhimer being one of them, that Mrs. Dugan rented
 when  ill in 1840.  These  very charitable parties, who  are now
 censuring me for my neglect, were, it appears, actually prevented
 by my advice, turning  the dying patient into the street.  Such are
 White's  remaining witnesses, and  with such he would  pretend to
 gainsay  the  sworn  testimony of several  reputable  physicians.
 As an advocate he is welcome to all the honor such object.and such
 associations can  bring him.   I am  sure  there will be  but one
 opinion of what credit he and they are entitled to.
   In thus  exposing  the base character of the testimony White
 relied  on to sustain him in his pamphlet, I  have swept  away all
 the evidence he has produced in the Dugan controversy, since he
 first opened  the sluices of his abuse.   He stands now, precisely
 where he started, namely,  with  Mary Dugan as his sole witness;
 she being the only one who pretends to make good his charges on
 personal knowledge.   All other witnesses speak only by hearsay,
 from her.   With whatever  talcs she may  be asserted  to have told
 others, I have nothing to  do.  It is no question of mine  whether
 she told Mr.  A., or Mrs. B., or Rev. Mr. C, or other  persons, this
 story or that, it is only  incumbent on  me to show what she related
 to me, and  to those believing and acting with me, and prove there-
 from, that what I have  stated  there are good and sufficient grounds
 for believing.   The veracity of my statements  has been sustained
 by the concurrent testimony of Drs. Beaumont, Brown, Carpenter,
 Reyburn and  Sykes." With  such endorsers, I  am  ready and
 willing to stand judgment before any community;  they are men of
 intelligence, of respectability, of higher standing  than my assail-
 ants, and their assertions will be weighed by readers, unbiassed by
 the reckless falsification, ribaldry and slang of an incensed brawler.
   I  shall now take up each  portion of White's  pamphlet, which
 contains, as he avers,  a falsehood on the part of those he assails.
 In order to make  out  the  moderate  number of 58 falsehoods, he
reiterates the same charges, and to several numbers, in his frenzy,
forgets to append any  charge whatever, as to numbers 33, 39, &c.
His  witnesses  also multiply  by an imaginary process—like Fal-
stafPs men in  buckram, the  assailants increase as the story pro-
gresses, and finally, what were two or three, become an imaginary
forty.  Thus> Mrs. Dugan related something six years ago to Mrs.
A., Mrs. B., Revs. Messrs. C. and D., &c., therefore, all these parties
are reckoned as cognizant of the truth of what Mrs. D. stated. Par- 
11
ties  who  merely testify to the characters of witnesses, are also
assumed as proving what  these witnesses  assert; on page 12, one
Barbary Myers becomes two  Barbaries, and thus, over and over
again, by such knavish amplification, is an  imaginary number of
forty witnesses counted  on page 16, as proving, what, when  sifted,
is discovered to be the  mere assertion of Mary Dugan—all other
parties speaking from her  statement, and not of matters of  which
they  had personal knowledge.  A great  many of the assertions
charged as false, are put down by White to Dr. Reyburn, although
in his testimony before  the  Court, Dr. R. made a distinction be-
tween those remarks made from personal  observation, and those
given on  the information of others.  Indeed, White's chief ven-
geance  is levelled at Dr. Reyburn;  he is bent en annihilating him
in particular.  Yet Dr. R.  stated on the trial, that he did not visit
Mrs. Dugan until June, 1840, several weeks after the  commence-
ment of her disease, and that whatever he stated as occurring
before that  time, was on  the representation of Mrs.  Dugan and
myself;  she concurring  in the correctness  of what I stated  before
her.  This  explanation by  Dr. R., was given in the  very com-
mencement of his testimony, as the published  report of the trial,
and counsel's notes of the testimony prove;  and must  have been
plainly understood by White, for he was earnestly attentive  to Dr.
K.'s examination.
   Statements numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, in White's  pamphlet, and
charged as  false, relate  to Mrs. Dugan's  representations of the
unauthorized intrusion of  White  into her  case, &c   I will not
dwell with seriousness on  these numbers, they are  unworthy of a
grave remark.   Whether  Mrs. D. did or did not  send  for Dr.
White, and  has or has not misrepresented him and others, I  do not
pretend to decide.  But that she told me, that he and his compan-
ion came solely  on the authority of one who had  no right  to
intrude  them on my patient, and sought  to have me ejected; and
further,  that her  confidence in me was unshaken until they inter-
fered, I  do avow;  and  that the representation  made of their
conduct  was also given by Mrs. D. to Drs. Brown, Beaumont,
Carpenter, Reyburn  and  Sykes, I also affirm, and  refer to those
gentleman for the truth of it.  They have already testified on this
point.   I  will now only occupy my  page with an extract from  a
letter to me from one of them, Dr. Sykes, which reads thus: "In
relation to the part Drs. White and Knox and others had in get-
ting or endeavoring to get you discharged or dismissed from your
attendance on Mrs. Dugan, I declare I heard it from herself—she
6tated it again and again,  and it made a strong impression on me
as most unwarrantable (if  true) on their part, and the idea promul-
gated then and since of your having cut a gut, was as disingenuous
as it was  disgraceful and  utterly  untrue, and that  you did your
duty most entirely from  the period when you first asked my advice
until I ceased my attendance."
  That the remarks of Dr.  Reyburn, on this conduct of Drs. White 
12
and Knox, were brought before the public with names attached, ia
due to White alone.  So far as Dr. R.'s intentions went, he never
sought to carry his strictures beyond the members of the Medical
Society, before which body he  first read his paper, and where such
conduct was a proper subject of remark, and where, no doubt, due
amende would be given, whenever explanations authorized it.  At
White's instance, as would appear from his  " Remarks," Dr. R.'s
paper was brought into court on the trial, and by the counsel for
the prosecution, urged as testimony in the suit against me.
  No. 5 of White's  list charges Dr. Reyburn with falsely reporting
that Mrs. Dugan's side was cured before she left St. Louis in 1840.
Be this true  or false, it  is not chargeable on  Dr. R.  White has
carefully excluded  from  quotation any  qualifying or explanatory
passages given in Dr. R.'s testimony, from which this false charge is
carefully detached  for malicious use.   This statement Dr. R. made
on my authority, and with me it was an  inference drawn from the
woman's conduct, for I expressly told her she would not  be able to
travel until the  ulcer in her groin had healed.   Dr. R. explained to
the court  (see published  report of trial, May No., 1846,  St. Louis
Medical and Surgical Journal, page 558,) that he stated that she was
cured on my  authority.   Mrs. Bardo swore  that her mother's  side
broke out before she reached her house, up Mo. river.  How could
it have broken out if* it had not healed ?   Mrs. Robinson's  statement
on a previous page, shows the  ulcer  had closed.   The only state-
ment made by Dr. R., of his  own knowledge on this point, is, that
when  he visited Mrs. D., in  June, 1840, "the diseased parts were
nearly healed ;  all that remained (of  the previous ulceration) was a
small fistulous canal, about the  size of a quill, communicating with
the intestines," and there is no testimony calling this in question.
  No. 6 of White's category takes  up the position to deny it, "that
the material details of Mrs. Dugan's affidavit were not confirmed by
any physician who visited her in 1840," &c. Now, the affidavit makes
out a clear and  indisputable case of hernia, without any symptoms
that  would obscure it.  White swore he could  not  say  positively
her disease was hernia, but infers it was. If the affidavit were true,[he
could speak positively, for he must have heard such account from the
patient in 1840.  The counsel's notes of Dr. Knox's testimony reads—
"I ( Dr. K.) can't say she had  hernia,—but she now has hernia."
Neither of these  witnesses testified  to  any details of the case, as
heard  from the patient herself.   Dr.  Mullowny, who visited the
patient the day I  was first called to her, writes, that "the climate
exciting cause, or some local phenomenon '! ! !) had made a great
difference in  the disease, as it is described by authors," and  "from
some facts and further conversation,"  he was of the impression it
was  hernia.  We  have nothing from  Dr. McCabe  to corroborate
the details of  this affidavit.  We have only his opinion, (unexplained
by the circumstances on which it rested,) that the disease was  hernia,
and that dissection would prove it;  but does  he say it was  a  clear
and  incontestibje case of  hernia, by the woman's own description ? 
13
No:  he calls on dissection as the only means of  solving  the doubt.
I will venture to say, that Dr. McCabe, while  holding  this opinion,
will admit that  Mary Dugan's case was of such obscure charac-
ter as would create honest difference of opinion among medical men,
without forfeiture of character for knowledge or skill on  either side.
Dr. McCabe's opinion was formed at my request;  I had  nothing to
conceal, so invited every physician whose opinion I would value
in an obscure case of disease.   I also invited Drs. H. Lane,  M. Martin,
Campbell, and others, with  the honest desire  to explain a medical
obscurity. The fact of physicians of acknowledged skill differing in
opinion of the nature  of the case, is evidence that its character could
not  be clearly defined.
   Nos. 17, 18, and 19, of White's catalogue, also  concern  this pre-
cious  affidavit.    On  the first seven pages of Dr. Reyburn's "Sup-
plement to the July No. of  the  St. Louis Medical  and  Surgical
Journal," in reply to  White's first "remarks," is a clear exposition of
the falsehoods of  this affidavit, made  up  by comparing its details
with the  sworn testimony of many physicians.  White,  on his ipse
dixit alone, denies Dr. R.'s  positions ;  but bold denial will  not pass
for proofs.  He must show the  quotations of the testimony  to be
false, their applications to be erroneous, their meaning  to have been
misunderstood, or  the general conclusions of the argument to be
unsound, before he can sweep away Dr. R.'s refutation.  Slurring
over facts and sound  reasoning will not supersede argument.   Drs.
Pope, Carr Lane,  J. B. Johnson,  R. <fc C. Stevens, McDowell, &c,
testified to there being no hernia  in Mrs. Dugan's case, when they
examined her in 1844, but her affidavit declares  she  "could  have
brought witnesses to prove she had hernia seven years previous to the
operation, (1840,) and which (hernia) still exists to this  day," (1846,)
and must have existed,by her own account, in 1844. Dr. Sykes swore
positively that she had  not hernia; that  he  examined  her (1840)
minutely  for it.   Dr. Carpenter testified that he  was "convinced,
from her  own statement, (in 1840,) that  she had not hernia."  Drs.
Beaumont, Brown, and  Reyburn confirm this  fact.   Does White
suppose he can invalidate the testimony  of these gentlemen, by the
bold, reckless swearing of his plastic  tool ?  Does he imagine this
community will hold her guiltless, and them perjured?  You cannot
take  the  testimony of these  gentlemen, and believe  otherwise than
that  M, Dugan has  been guilty of voluntary,  gratuitous  perjury.
These  physicians avow,  in substance, that they heard from her lips,
in 1840, a totally different statement from that in  her affidavit.  Now,
how are readers to decide in the case 1   On the one side,  there is an
unscrupulous, vindictive foe, gratuitously swearing for his malicious
purposes, a  wanton,  vicious,  ignorant, degraded beggar.  On the
other, there is cultivated intelligence,  memories practised  in the
retention  of professional  facts, and a respectability and standing that
the assailant has never yet reached, giving testimony under the well
understood, solemn requirements of the judicial  oath.
   No. 26  takes up the opinion of Dr. Reyburn, that  this affidavit 
11
bears falsehood on its face ; and No. 23 refers to the contradictions
of it by White and  Mrs. Bardo.   What  I  have already stated con-
firms these positions.  It is true, the contradiction of White is con-
structive rather than positive.   He concurs in none of its details of
fact, and where his opinion would necssarily be called up, and go to
confirm the statements in the affidavit, he avoids giving it.   Thus,
he avoids giving his opinion whether the present hernia be the same
that existed in  1840, as M. Dugan's affidavit declares.  Mrs. Bardo
swore "there was no lump on her mother's side, after the operation,
like what there was  before," thus  bluntly contradicting her  mother.
The fact that none  of the medical parties asserting hernia,  attest
whether it was inguinal or femoral, is proof of the obscure character
of the case and the inaccuracy of their examination.   On this  point
there could not be the shadow of doubt, if the late "Extra"  account
by Dr. Knox were true, for that  statement makes out that  Mrs.
Dugan must have had inguinal hernia in 1840.   Neither White
nor Knox distinguished, in their testimony in court, whether it was
inguinal or femoral hernia that the patient might have had in 1840.
Mrs. Dugan, White proves, now has femoral hernia, and her affidavit
makes out, as I have shown, Hhat the hernia of 1840 still exists
to this dayP How  are these contradictions to be reconciled ?
  No. 10 of  White's category refers to the statements in the letter of
Thomas  S. and Ann Cox, which I pronounced  false and malicious.
In order to establish the good character of these "plastic witnesses,"
White adopts a very shallow fraud, which is exposed  by the  follow-
ing notes from the parties to whom he refers his readers.
  "I hereby certify, that, some time last  fall, Dr. White called  on
me to know  if I was acquainted with Mr. Thomas Cox.  I told him
I was ; that he was a member in good standing,  in the Free  Presby-
terian Church, of which I was a member, and subscribed my name
to a recommendation of his character to that purport.   Since that
time, I have had an interview with Dr. White, and ascertained that
the Thomas Cox that I knew, was not the man that Dr. White
described to  me, and whom I intended to recommend.
  St. Louis, Feb. 23, 1847.              JOSHUA TUCKER."
  *!I was of the  same  opinion that Mr.  Tucker entertained at  the
time concerning Mr. Thomas Cox, and I  supposed him to be  the
gentleman now acting as founder at the Iron Mountain Company's
works, in St. Francis  Co., and  therefore  endorsed  Mr. Tucker's
statement for Dr. White.              C.  WM. LIGHTNER."
   Bear Sir:—In answer to your inquiry, as to the first name of
Mr. Cox, now acting in capacity of blower or founder for the Ameri-
can Iron Mountain Co., I certify that, from letters now in my posses-
sion, as well as from Mr. Cox personally, his first name is Thomas,
and has no middle name.  So far as I know, always signs his name
Thomas Cox.                   Respectfully,
  Feb. 26, 1847.                          jAS.  HARRISON.
Dr. S.  W. Adreon, Present.
  So much for Mr. Cox, and his friend White's idea of  what consti- 
15
tutes good character.   It appears White's Mr. Cox is still somebody
unknown, and, as I now prove, unworthy of belief.
   Thomas S.  Cox, and Ann his wife, were examined on the trial, as
witnesses for Mary Dugan, yet  did not deliver themselves of those
relevant facts  which they since have thought proper to furnish to
White in letter.   They were sworn to tell the whole truth ; but no
matter, ihey did not do so, that is  if their, letter be true.  Mary
Dugan swears in  her  affidavit that it was in person I told her to
leave the city, at the same time giving her medicine to take with
her, saying I had seen one of the officers of the boat, &c, implying
I had paid for her passage, being anxious to get rid of her.  Thomaa
S. Cox, however, two weeks after M. Dugan, had sworn to a different
statement of the facts, has  to remind her  that, to his certain know-
ledge, it was by letter I advised  to go above, and the boat she should
take, saying I  had settled for her passage, &c.;  and the said truthful
Thomas remembers that her son  it was who came to my office for
medicine, not I that gave it in person to Mrs. D., and the son forth-
with goeth and swears he came  to my office, &c.   Now, which of
these  statements is true?  Was  it  by letter or in person  I urged her
to hide herself? What  was the use of me  writing to M. Dugan,
when I was still visiting her, and could have therefore more effect-
ually, in person, urged my patient to leave town?  Furthermore, I
Was under no obligation to attend her, so could have ceased visiting
whenever I felt so disposed, without sending the patient away to  rid
myself of responsibility.   Mrs. Cox, too, distinctly  recollects  all
about my letter, yet, when she  was  questioned in court, as to what
county she had resided  in, she could not tell.  She knew she lived
in Portland, a  small village of  a few  houses on the Mo. river;  yet,
so ignorant was this memorable witness, that she did not  know it
was in  Callaway County, a fact probably known to every farmer's
wife in the county, save Mr. Cox's.   Query : Can she read ?  But
the clear-headed truthfulness of these two witnesses is further shown
on comparison of their several testimonies on the trial.
   The existence of the letter from me to Mrs. Dugan is asserted by
the Coxes alone.  Mrs.  Dugan  herself does not assert it, but gives,
as I have said, a different account of the circumstances named in  the
letter.   The  Reinhimer family say they did not see the letter, nor
did Mrs. Stillwell;  she only heard from Mrs. Dugan that I advised
her to go.   Those  who  attest the truth of the Coxes'  statement
qualify their attestation  by saying, "it is true  in all  its material
facts," at any rate.  Pray, what facts in it  are  not material ?  and
how perfect the recollection, how  reliable that attestation must be,
which has thus to qualify admissions to a statement containing, at
most, but four or five  facts ?   Mrs. Cox is competent, according to
White,  to remember minute details  of the events of  1840, yet he
could not answer to a material  medical fact then occurring, "it was
so long ago."   Mrs. Cox swore she came down to St. Louis in the
Spring of 1840, but "don't know what month."  Her husband testi-
fied they came down in May.   Mrs. C. testified "she thinks it was 
16
Summer when Dr. Adreon was called in" to Mrs. Dugan, and that
"she was very low when Dr. A. was called in," implying, of course,
that she was there, at Mrs. Dugan's, at  that time.   Now, I was
called in to  Mrs.  Dugan in April, the month before the Coxes re-
moved here  from  the Missouri river,  therefore Mrs.  Cox could know
nothing of what then occurred,  as she was not in the city, though she
swears  to the contrary.   Now, what is  such testimony  and such
witnesses worth ?   On reference to the counsel's notes, and published
report of the trial  of Dugan vs. Beaumont  and Adreon, the foregoing
will be found as  1 have stated it, and the testimony, letters. &c., of
the Coxes, Dugans, and Whites, show that they are recklessly bent
on making and publishing any malicious statement, no matter how
false, that would cover the disgrace and gratify the malice of  their
principal.
  And now  a few words in relation to Mrs.  Dugan's leaving town.
I have  before me Mr. F.  E.  Robinson's statement,  that  Linsay
Burke,  brother-in law  of Mrs. Dugan, left money  with him to pay
her passage up the river, which he gave  to her at the  time of her
departure, so I had no occasion to see the officers of any boat, pay
her passage,  &c.   The statements of the Coxes, I repeat, a^e  false
and malicious. The  last  two  or three weeks I attended Mrs. D.,
she  urged me to  consent to her removal  up the  Missouri  river,
among her relatives, saying she would there be less dependent, better
attended to,  and she  thought the change of air would be beneficial
to her.   I invariably told her she should  not go until the ulceration
was healed.   At this period she only required a visit every second  or
third day In an  interval between my visits, she left town, as I sub-
quently learned on calling at her dwelling to prescribe  for her.  At
my last visit, the ulceration was nearly closed, and I then inferred the
contingency upon which  I was to  have consented to her departure
had occurred, namely : that she was cured, and so reported her when
asked by Dr. Reyburn. Her extreme anxiety to be with her relatives,
and her very destitute condition here, (for she had been subsisting
for many months on charity)  was  the sole cause of  her  leaving
the city.
   Nos. 7 and 15, concern my assertion,  that I  did not neglect the
patient.  The only person asserting that I  did, is Mary Dugan—
other parties state they only heard it of her.   Her  affidavit  declares
that" Dr. Adreon  and others, my attending physicians, having imme-
diately after the  operation on  my  side,  whereby  my bowels  were
cut, abandoned me for three days, and, as I thought, left me to die."
I  appeal  to those gentlemen  who visited the  patient  with me,
whether, at  that  time, there was any such charge as neglect made
against me  by M. Dugan.   Dr. Sykes testified, that he visited the
patient the day after my operation, (p. 55., report of trial,) so here is
testimony on oath to contradict the affidavit. If her statements  on
this point be true, how did it occur that, on my first visit after  White
and Knox  had interfered, I was not forbidden  to visit any more 7
They had left, promising to call again, and I must  have forfeited  the 
17
patient's confidence, as well as have incurred her greatest displeasure,
by  my asserted  neglect and abuse, yet they  were ejected, and I
retained in the case.   How is this to be accounted for?  The fact
is,]neglect was not then charged on me at all.   The real state of the
case was, that Mr. Light, deciding the case to be hernia, and that I
had mistaken its nature, in the unnecessary exeess of his zeal and
indignation, called in  White and Knox to verify his opinions, and
treat the case correctly.  Then it was this party raised doubt in the
patient's mind of the nature  of her disease, and excited her extreme
alarm.  It is true, I did not  think my patient would recover, still I
continued in attendance, and there was not the shadow of justifica-
tion for their conduct, as my having called in a consultation to the
case shows my desire to do even more than  mere professional duty
to the patient.   In the whole course  of her illness, in the several
statements she made, at different times of the circumstances of her
case,  to Drs. Beaumont, Brown, Carpenter, Sykes, and  Reyburn,
Mary Dugan never once charged me with neglect, nor admitted
that it was by her authority White and Knox were called in.   She
invariably represented their visit, as made  alone,  on  Mr. Light's
authority, to  convince her of  my error and  ignorance.    To the
gentlemen I have named, I refer for the truth of what I here state;—
they have already attested  my account, and will do so again.
  Nos. 11, 12, 29, 43, concern the same  fact, for White  scatters
and repeats his charges to stretch his catalogue.  It  concerns the
charge, whether  White instigated, or aided, or abetted, the prose-
cution of Mary Dugan vs. Beaumont and Adreon.   Dr. Reyburn
has stated in his  pamphlet  his  grounds of conviction of the fact.
Were not the many physicians specially invited to see the case by
White, so invited to be subsequently made use of as witnesses ? Were
not some of them inveigled by him into the case, and when they found
he  was but holding an inquisition over my presumed professional
sins, did they not indignantly leave the  house?  The testimony on
the trial proves  this.   White pretends that he asked  the counsel of
some two or three of the  physicians, as  to what might be done for
the woman's relief.   But  does this show  that all  were invited for
that purpose ?   No: the  knave was so much the dupe of his own
art, as to  attempt to cover  his  real object  by shallow subterfuge.
Did he ask Drs. Johnson, Pope, Shore, Simmons, Chase, McPhee-
ters, Henry, &c. &c.,to examine the case with a view to prescribe
for it ?  Does not some of their  testimony show, that when they
found themselves in the  case, they evidently wished to have  as
little to do with  it as possible ?  Some of  them admit in substance
in  their  evidence, that they examined  it, but carelessly.   Will
White charge that these gentlemen would have been thus negligent
had their charity and skill been  alone called upon ?   But I now
distinctly  charge, that the  suit never would have been entered, were
it not for  White's agency.  It was selectedly levelled against the
two, who, of all others, he has been  bitterest against in his proles- 
18
sional  career, and  one principal  (Dr. Sykes)  whom  White has
attempted to conciliate, was more responsible in the case, had more
to do with it at the period of its asserted maltreatment, than Dr.
Beaumont;  yet he  was specially left out of the prosecution, as if in
the vain hope that the partnership difficulties between him and Dr.
B. might prejudice his testimony against us.   Dr. Reyburn, in his
pamphlet, stated, on my information, that White called on a legal
firm, and solicited them to take the case of  Dugan against Beau-
mont and Adreon.  That firm was Crocket & Briggs.   I regret
having to bring these gentlemen's names into this controvery, under
such circumstances, but as  the information was given  me  by the
partner, without  any injunction then of secrecy, I felt authorized
to speak of it.  J had  no thought  at the  time, that White would
have had the effrontery to  deny what he  knew  was substantially
true, and when he must have known the  firm referred  to by Dr.
R.  On  calling on Mr. Briggs in relation to the fact, he referred me
to his senior partner, Mr. Crocket, and  the following is, I  believe,
an  accurate  statement of  the conversation  on  the  matter,  held
between Mr. C. and myself a short  time  after  the appearance  of
White's last  pamphlet." Mr. Crocket said, that  <• Dr. White had
called upon  him, stating, that Mrs. Dugan, who was  at that time
up the river, was expected  down, that he  expected when she arri-
ved she would institute suit against Adreon and Beaumont, and  in
the event of her doing so, he (White) would  recommend him."
He (Mr. C.) " did not tell White whether  he would engage in the
suit or not.   Dr. White has called on him, (Mr. C.) and he repeated
this same statement to him,"  and Mr. C. further said that  " he had
spoken  about this matter so  often  that he supposed many persons
knew it," and he  did  not authorize, nor  yet forbid me using his
information.  It will be remembered, that White was  particularly
wrathy at  the imputation of  his leaguing with the  prosecutrix
being surmised from the fact of his  immediate  attendance on her
at her return, and denies knowing anything  about  her  during her
absence, and even brings testimony to prove, that she did not know
he was in  St. Louis, until informed by one of her family.   How
did he know that she was returning,  and with the object of suing?
How came ho to be acting as the honored agent and adviser of the
prosecutrix, if he were not  in  communication with her ?  These
circumstances are in favor of the probability of his having written,
urging her to come, else how came  he to possess the information
he gave Mr. Crockett? From White's paper you would suppose he
could not surmise what legal firm was alluded to in Dr. Reyburn's
statement; but he  can no longer fall back on his voluntary igno-r
ranee, and I challenge the production of an authoritative denial by
Mr. Crocket, of the fact, that White did call on him to accept the
suit.
  There is in White's pamphlet, a  letter in reference to this last
topic from Mr. Murdoch, in which the latter attempts, on assump* 
19
 turns, to give a different version to ihe matter referred  to in Dn
 Carpenter's  letter,  published  by  Dr. Reyburn.  The'" difference
 between  the  two versions (Dr. C.'s and  Mr. M.'s)  is trivial; Dr.
 Carpenter still asserts  the correctness of what he stated  on the
 subject, and quotes Dr.  Sykes as confirming his facts, Mr.M. to the
 contrary, notwithstanding.
   No. 13, of White's category, attempts to deny that Dr. ReybUrrt
 took notes  of Mary Dugan's case "in its earliest stage."   This
 part of White's paper, is as some other  parts are,  namely, mere
 quibbling on words, or an attempt to apply testimony that does not
 cover the facts disputed. Certainly the first two or three months of
 a disease  of it is asserted seven years subsequent duration, may be
 considered  its earliest  stage.  White's assertion  that Dr. Sykes
 denies that any notes of the case were taken at all, is loo absurd to
 be  noticed.   I am informed by Dr. Reyburn that Br. Sykes states,
 that all he ever said on the  subject was, that  so  far as he knewj
 neither Beaumont nor Adreon  look notes.  Dr. Sykes was totally
 incompetent to know whether  Dr. R. did or did not take notes.
 How could he tell what another physician was doing when he was
 not present ?  Dr. Sykes never visited  the patient at the same time
 with Dr.  R., consequently could  not affirm  or  deny his  taking
 notes ;  and  Dr. R.  explains  in  his pamphlet, when, where; and
 how, these notes originated, and of which  neither Dr. S. nor Dr.
 Beaumont nor myself knew anything, until his paper was read (or
 to prevent caviling, I should say about  to be read) befbre the Med-
 ical Society of Missouri.  The  accounts of the case by Drs. Sykes
 and  Reyburn substantially agree with each other.  In one single
 fact, Dr. Sykes insists that Dr. R.'s meaning  is at variance  with
 hi', while Dr. R. insists  Dr. S. misapprehends his words.  When
 Doctors differ who shall  decide 1  White's assertion that Dr. Sykes
 repeatedly told Dr. R. that his report of the ca$e was incorrect in
 almost every particular, is, I am  authorized to say by  Dr. R.,  a
 gross misrepresentation.  Dr. S. never called in question the cor-
 rectness of the report, except in the one point referred to, and out
 of this, in part, grew the dispute between them, which resulted in
 their estrangement, and this may account  for Dr. S. being quoted
 by White in contradiction of Dr. R.
  It is a little remarkable, that  the only witness  for the prosecu-
 tion. (Mis. Waddingham) who testified to the date of my operation
 on Mrs. Dugan, places  it on Monday—the very day of the week
 corresponding to April  27th, 1840—the day named in Dr.  Rcy-
 burn's  paper as that on  which I operated.   Even if the date varied
 a day or two from the exact time, it is of little consequence, as the
 successive details  of  the symptoms, could not be shown to be false
 from so trivial an  error as that of a date.
  White, in  Nos. 11, 31, 32, 36, is wrath y and abusive,  at the
charge of his  never having had the case of Mrs. Dugan until 1844.
It is evident that  Dr. Reyburn, in  the  passages referred  to in the
above numbers, founded his belief on  the representations of Mary 
20
Dugan, and  discusses the question disputed, according to the rules
regulating intercourse  among  professional  gentlemen.   By  the
understood courtesy of the profession, White's interference in the
case was unwarrantable, and the  use  he made of his opportunity,
vindictive and dishonorable.  Mrs. Dugan represented that she did
not call in White, and by professional rules,  he had not the case.
He sought to get it, thought he had it, paid one visit promising to
call again, and by bis  showing, I was to be rejected  as  medical
attendant, and he was  to  supercede  me, as I had mistaken and
maltreated the case, &c.; but lo and  behold! at my next visit, the
promised ejectment does not take place, but he is cast aside. I found
the same dressings continued at my next visit, after White's inter-
ference in the case, that I had ordered  previously; no steps had
been taken for the patient's relief, so far as I could learn.   White
merely made what he deemed the exhibition of my  want  of skill,
and  by the  showing of. himself and  Knox, was to have called
again, but never showed his face to the patient until after her re-
turn in 1844.   It does not appear either from White's first publi-
cation, or from the report of the testimony on the trial, (the only
sources, save  that I have mentioned, from which Dr. Reyburn
could  have  obtained  information  on this point,) that White pre-
scribed at that time for Mrs. Dugan.
   No. 16, concerns Drs. Henry and Trudeau.  White is still anx-
ious to associate these gentlemen with him,  in the charge of inde-
corous conduct  in the  Dugan case..  I  have already  made  the
amend to them and need not repeat it.  I will here explain,  that
by White's "associates" in the case,  I mean those who so  inde-
cently sought to slander the medical attendants of the  patient, by
condemning  them without being sure their representations were
correct—I mean the intimates  of the Dugans who joined White
in his slanders, in 1840—the gossips of the  neighborhood—parti-
sans and  associates of their worthy brother. Dr. Henry's letter,
published in  " White's Remarks,"  exposes the falsehood by which
he was drawn into visiting the case.   That Dr. H. would not have
gone, had he not been  led to suppose, by some such misrepresen-
tation, that  it was by good motive and right he was invited, I do
not doubt.
   No. 21, concerns  the date of Dr. Mullowny's diploma.   The
following will show Dr. Reyburn's statement on  this  point to be
given from record:
   " I hereby certify, that on page 88, of the Record Book of the
Medical  Society of Missouri, Dr. S. D. Mullowny's diploma from
the Jefferson Medical College, is recorded  by Dr. W.  B. Gilded,
then Secretary of the Society, as bearing date. 1841.
                                  J. W.  HALL, M.D.,
                      President Medical Society of Missouri."
   We have nothing to oppose  this but White's assertion, that the
dcte of the  diploma is  given earlier in  some other record.   Dr.
Reyburn used the fact, to show that Dr.  M.'s prejudices would be 
21
in favor of White, (being W.'s student,) hence his statements, if at
variance with the latter's, would be the stronger testimony against
him.  This would certainly be even more the case, were he his
partner, having been his student; so  White gains nothing,  were
his contradiction even true.
   No. 22, refers to Dr. Mullowny's letter, which for White has not
yet done  him his worst.  White's attempt to ridicule Dr. R.'s use
of Dr. M.'s statement is  absurd; but it was his only way to  treat
the difficulty, for  get out of it he could not.   Every word of Dr.
M.'s letter confirms Dr. R.'s and my own views of the case.  From
this letter, it appears  White was sent  for  by Mrs. Dugan the very
day I was first called in, and Dr. Muilowny (being  then  his student
or partner) went, accompanied by another physician, (White, it may
be presumed, else why is his name and testimony not given.) Dr. M.
reports the symptoms of the woman substantially as described by me,
the first day I saw her.  (See Dr. Reyburn''s report of M. Dugan's case
in the published report of the trial,p.bi 1 and Dr. M.'s letter.) From the
symptoms and " further conversation," Dr. M. " was of the impres-
sion it was hernia."  It does not clearly appear that Dr. M. made
any  close examination of the state of the groin,  further than to
say, that " the climate, exciting cause, or some local phenomena,
had made a great difference in the disease, (he assuming it to be hernia,)
as it is described by authors," &c.  Now, were  the tumor as " large
as a tea-cup ;"  were it as clear and  unmistakable a case of hernia
as Mary Dugan's  affidavit would  make it  appear, Dr.  M. would
have no hesitation in verifying all Mrs. Dugan  swears to, but when
he descends  to  particulars, To,  he  confirms  my  account of the
disease, and acknowledges it was obscured by  some local phenom-
ena, Mary Dugan's affidavit to the contrary, notwithstanding.
  But, to return to the letter:  White was sent for to attend M. Dugan
—he  refused  to do it, and why did he so refuse ?   Why did he not
go, and  "thereby add another item to  the numerous charities" Mr.
Light knows  him to have performed ?  With all the due  respect
and esteem Mr. L. may have for his  worthy friend, will  he, can he,
suggest any reason for his not going, other than that he knew that
Mrs. D. could not pay for attendance?—which circumstance every
thing around her foretold.  To use White's  own words, did not
" duty and humanity as loudly call  on him" then, as afterwards  ?
But  he  left her to my dubious  benevolence for weeks after, when
an inquisition assserted I had  grossly maltreated,  abused, ruined
the poor patient.  Then it was, when Mrs. Dugan swears she called
on him by letter, and Mr. Light and Mr. Tabor affirm, that not
Mrs.  D.,  but Mr.  L. called  on him by writing, then  it was, his
sleeping charity was aroused, and he  would  take  the case under
his benevolent care, to gloat over my supposed errors and  publish
them  to the world.   Was it not to keep up his credit with Mr. L.
for cheap benevolence, that he then would have  attended ? and
had not his charity some connection  with the revenge he owed Dr.
Beaumont, (for  he, it was supposed, was attending with me,) for, 
22
some time previously refusing to acknowledge him as a professional
gentleman, or meet  him in  consultation.  One short  year before
this, at his own solicitation,  White had met Dr. B. at my office, to
arrange difficulties between  them, and  the hand he sought to lick
spurned him as  too  degraded and  base  to  trust as an  associate*
For this he owed Dr. B. no love. The well known vindictiveness of
White's nature, the undying malice of this most virtuous, most char-
itable man, will afford a much more  ready solution of these moral
problems,  than  any supros.tion  of charitable intention,  on  his
part.   Dr. Mullowny states in his letter, that the woman had small
pulse,  cool  extremities,  hippocrutic  face, general symptoms  of
severe colic, &c, and, according to  his account, must have suffered
under unrelieved strangulated hernia, for two or three weeks after*
wards.  Wonderful, indeed!   What a  monument of skill I am, to
save her after these certain signs of  approaching death.   Certain-
ly I can well say that " the climate, exciting cause, or some local
phenomena had  made  a great difference in the disease  as it is
described  by authors within  my reach."  With Domine Sampson,
I am compelled to exclaim, " prodigious!!!"  All these circumstan-
ces are distinctly stated in the letter; all are strong proofs of the
truth of what Wrhite  has been striving to contradict, yet, in  his
short-sighted malignancy, he brings all  forward,  giving  me the
strongest evidence in my own favor, and against himself.
  No. 23, of White's list, states that Dr. Reyburn had  convenient-
ly forgotten  to show the contradictions  between Mrs. Dugan's,
Mrs. Bardo's, and White's statements.  Mrs. Dugan makes out her
disease in 1840 to have  been a clear indisputable case of hernia.
White could  not say  positively she had  hernia,only infers she had.
If he  had heard  such  statement of her case in 1840, as that she
now gives, he could speak positively as to its nature,  Mrs. Dugan
declares the hernia which existed in  1840, "still exists to this day."
White, if he  believed this, would have  confirmed it on the witness
stand, but he avoided  touching the  question.  Mrs. Bardo swore
her mother's "side had broken out before she arrived at her house*
up  the Missouri  river,"  and  that  '• there  was  no lump  on her
mother's side, after the  operation, like what there was  before/' her
mother's affidavit to the contrary, notwithstanding.  By Knox's late
"Extra" account, if M. Dugan had hernia in 1840, it must have been
inguinal.  White testified to her having /emora^ hernia now, which
latter is clearly shown in Dr. Sykc's and  Dr. Reyburn's papers to
be  a  necessary consequence of the perforative ulceration of  the
bowels under which they believe  she suffered in 1840.  This
femoral hernia, now  present, is proven by the testimony' of Drs.
Moore, C.  & R. Stevens, J. B. Johnson,  C.  Lane, McDowell,
Pope,  &c, and  by the statements of  Drs. Chase, Stith, &c,
to  be of recent origin, as it did not  exist when some of them
carefully  examined the patient for hernia, in  1844, and did present
itself  subsequently in 1816, when others of them examined her.
If there be  not gross  contradiction here, of each other by the three
above named parties, I  do not know what contradiction means. 
23
  No. 21, is a detached  quotation (purposely garbled by White)
from Dr. Rcyburn's pamphlet, which, when fairly quoted,is not to
be refuted by the assumptions adplicd to it by White.   It  should
read, " It will be observed in the report of the trial, that among all the
physicians examined, who had been taken to see the patient  at various
times, not one corroborated th: testimony of any of the witnesses for the
prosecution; although the greater portion of these gentlemen were invi-
ted to see the case by the plaintiffs medicj-legal adviser."  Dr. R. here
enidently refers to Drs. Moore, McDowell, Pope, Slcvenses, J. B.
Johnson, and Carr Lane, who were specially invited to the case
by White, in order that  their views  might be colored,  and  their
testimony duly prepared for the benefit of the prosecution.   Their
testimony sustains  the correctness of Dr. R.'s remarks, as may be
seen by previous quotations herein  used, and by reference  to the
report of the trial.
   No. 25, is an individual opinion, hardly requiring  remark.  Dr.
McPheeters's editorial—the counsel's remarks on the trial, may be
taken  as an index of the general  opinion on the  subject; and
White's chafing at the above, his seeking, by unscrupulous falsifi-
cation and abuse, to turn  the  current  of opinion, and  avoid the
odium he knew he had incurred, affords strong conviction of the
truth of the opinion.
   Nos. 27 and 44, of White's category, refer to  the same  report.
One of  the quotations purposely garbled by White, should read—
" White's complaint  that  the  report of the trial  was  garbled
and incorrect, was founded on  one  or  two trivial errors."  This
is strictly true—White,  though he  examined MSS. notes of the
testimony of  the trial, could find but one single error in  the report
to harp  upon ; even in his second publication he can  bring forward
no additional corrections.  Dr.  Reyburn is not responsible  for any
imperfections in the report, as he stated in his pamphlet what were
the  materials from which the editor  requested him  to make it, and
that he had made it as correct as the nature of that matter would per-
mit.  Dr. R. informs me, that Dr. J. B.  Johnson stated to him that
White's use of his name, in reference to this question,  was unau-
thorized.  Dr. J.  made  no complaint to  Dr. R. of  his  testimony
being misreported, a single word only  being misprinted.  White
would  convey the impression, that other witnesses  complained of
the  report of the  testimony being imperfect.   Drs. Stevens, Lane,
&c, whom he quotes, I am assured, never complained to Dr. R. of
 the  report, and how could Dr. R. know what he penned  was not
correct, as White  malignantly and  falsely asserts, if they did not
do so ?  As these assertions come forth on the credit of White alone
they are not worth further notice.   In this matter he has no doubt
done as  he has in other  parts of his pamphlet, namely,  used bold
falsehood, or the  misrepresentations of gossipping  eaves-droppers.
Dr. Trudeau, he asserts, (p. 17,)  told him that n certain part of his
testimony was suppressed.  I have examined counsel's notes of the
testimony and find Dr.  Rcyburn's transcription of  Dr. T.'s testis 
24
mony to be correct.   The particular pentenceof Dr. T.'s evidci
referred to, is recorded in Mr. Whittlesey's notes, thus—"
conversation with Dr. Beaumont, and he said it had been op
4-^-1 ..„~„  ~„J 1---1 14. „„* 1_____li. „.„.,u 1—.„___>^«J :*„„lf»  '
                                                      idcncc,
                                                         had
                                                     ... opera-
ted upon, and had it not been it would have opened itself."   This
refei
 eu upun, auu nau u nui ueeii u wuuiu  nave upeneu uaeii.   una
 efers  to  my  operation  on the inguinal  tumor,  and is  similarly
altered in the  other  MSS. notes of the  trial.   The published
report reads, " Dr. Beaumont  told witness an operation had been
performed, and if the tumor had not been  opened, it would have
opened itself."  The expression attributed  to Dr.  T., by White,
does not  occur in the counsel's notes of his examination.  The
mere fact of Dr. Reyburn's  testimony being given  at greater
length in  the published report, than that of any other witness, and
which seems to have awakened White's jeaJousy,  wrath and abuse
towards him, arises from the fact that counsel's notes give it in that
increased degree over others.   Dr. R. but adheres to his text in
reporting his testimony—he read  to  the court ten  or twelve pages
of closely printed  matter,  and, in  addition,  underwent a long
examination on the case.
  No.  30, refers to  my statement of.the  case, appended to  Dr.
Reyburn's  pamphlet, covering  the grounds of Mr. Light's asser-
tions.  Mr. Tabor and Mrs. Waddingham, in White's first publi-
cation, state what Mr. Light said and did in M Dugan s case, in
1840, and all three are separately  counted by W. ^ong his forty
witnesses  as testifying to what now appears  Mr. L. himself merely
helrd fro'n^Mary Dugan, in 1840.   Of the facts of the case, then,
     Lbs little or no personal knowledge.  He, as it appears by
his letter, refreshed his recollection before writing,  y f™™^*




^'truthl'l fount.  M,  LightW^^^nce
niture of M.  Dusran's case, in  184U, is iormeu iioih  ^
"w th the. doctri JL contained in the books from the days of Hunter
down to  the present," an  extent  of research that  Phys c  nrmsel.
c„uld not pretond  to.  And  here we ™"«™£%££



%$£ % own^ HadT leJed  S" the stric  >L of his
Sty-had he not been captiously censorious-had he W™'e
Za* was hi, duty, for the facts,  before he: caUrf   »>s  heg  ^
would never have been  difhculties  in M. Dugan »  c.se.
I   who probably had never heard of any disease similar in  yrnp
to'™ to hernia; who was not familiarized by practice with  the
rans of distinguishing  between  ^*>£>**gZ™ h


:^e and called  in White to rectify our errors.  The entire argn- 
25
mcnt of White amounts to just this—he brings forward the incom-
petent judgment of one, not a physician—the negative opinion of
another,  who acknowledged  on oath that  he knew nothing  of
tuphlo enteritis, (which disease the case might be.) and had never
seen a case of perforation of the bowels, together with himself,  to
contradict the positive testimony of the most reputable physicians,
whose opinions  in the case were formed on a most minute exami-
nation made at a most favorable time, when the presence of hernia
could  with greatest certainty be diagnosticated.  It is true he has
also pretended to back his assertions by the falsified representa-
tions of some female visitors, but these, when sifted, are found not to
aid his cause. And are the idle rumors of a neighborhood, excited
by false censures, or the  contradictory statements of a prostituted
maligner, who exaggerates her sufferings that she may profit by the
lie, and who used the most disgusting means to deceive physicians
invited to examine her, last July,—is such testimony competent to
refute that of a positive kind from reputable physicians ?  Such a
suggestion, even, is  an indication  of the degraded  feelings of  its
author, and proof that he but seeks,  by artifice, to prejudice those
against whom he is incensed.
  No. 34, refers to  the interview between myself and  Mr. Light,
in presence of Dr. Beaumont, and the late Wm. Smith, Esq.   Mr.
L. varies in his statement of the interview, from that I have given.
The matter then must rest between Mr. L. and  Dr. Beaumont and
myself. It is not at all probable I would call on Mr. L., with a
mutual friend, to explain my  conduct  to him, that  1  could  and
would do alone.   That he did apologise I again aver, but even ad*
mitting that he did not,  he owed it to me, as I must then have
convinced him that I had good reasons for believing in the correct-
ness of the course I had  pursued in  the  case.  Stiff-necked pride
of opinion, however, seems as  potent an element in other's moral
nature, as it may be in my own.
  No. 37, concerns the invilatioa given Dr. Simmons, to  visit the
case of M. Dugan, when I attended  her in 1840.   I  explained, in
reply to " Knox's Extra," that others  than Dr. Reyburn understood
Dr. S. on  this point precisely  as he  did.  The  following note on
the subject, I publish in justice to Dr. R., as Dr. Knox had not the
fairness to do it:
  " Dr. F. Knox: Sir—In reply to your note of yesterday, wherein
you state, " Please  inform  me  whether I ever asked you to visit
Mrs. Dugan," I have to answer, you did not.
  " As this inquiry is  made, doubtless, to fortify  yourself against
certain remarks of Dr. Reyburn, in his reply to Dr. White, I must
be permitted to add,that  as you and  Dr. W. were equally concern-
ed in the case of Mary Dugan, Dr. R. might  have honestly taken
the impression that  I  had been invited by both you and Dr. W.,
without either he or I  being chargeable with misrepresentation.
               " Yours,  Respectfully,       R.  P. SIMMONS.
  "St. Louis, Sept. 16, '46."
                               4 
26
     No, 38, concerns Dr. J. B. Johnson's letter.  White is enraged
  at Dr. Reyburn's opinion that the letter  was cavalier, &c.   Doc-
  tors will  differ, and I think the reply of Dr. J. seems  very like
  giving " the cold shoulder" to  his correspondent.   White, instead
  of publishing the correspondence, enumerates the lines in Dr. J.'s
  reply, and declares that it  was not cavalier, but a warm, friendly,
  extensive  letter of 12 lines,  without the caption and  compliment-
  ary conclusion.  Dr. Johnson remarked to Dr. Reyburn, as well as
  to others, that his  letter " was published  as  an extract,  when, as
  well as he could  recollect,  every word  it contained was quoted,
  except the commencement, ' Sir,' and the conclusion,' Respectfully,
  your obedient servant.' "  This statement Dr. J. will confirm at any
  time, and  it is now explained (Dr. J. having since obtained a copy
  of the letter) that the portion  omitted  by White in  his  publication,
  is merely a repetition of the  question to which Dr. J.  replies.  So,
  Dr. Reyburn's remarks on the subject are,  I  think, well borne out
  by facts.
    White next raves in No. 40, at Dr. Reyburn's opinion, that he had
  published letters merely for the show of numbers and names.  I am
  assured that White  quotes many physicians, on a trivial  point,  in his
  publication, who neither side nor sympathise with him in his course,
  and he seems  to forget (hat he used Judge Krum's, D. N. Hall's and
  Mr. Field's separate certificates, to correct a single word in  his
  testimony,  which Dr. Reyburn had corrected before he published.
  A correspondence with  a Judge, is imposing in any dispute, and as
  no artifice could be spared by White, to give respectability to an
  essay, which, on its own merits alone, was grossly indecent in object,
  style, and materials, he  solicits a certificate from the Judge, with the
  understanding on the part of his honor, that it was only wanted  to
 satisfy his counsel.   Judge Krum, I am informed, has, very properly,
 since White's  publication appeared, refused to permit reference  to
 his notes of the trial, saying, that he should have refused Dr. White
 that privilege,  had he known his object to have been for publication;
 that he understood  him to say,  he merely wished his certificate for
 the satisfaction of his counsel.
   Next, in  Nos. 41  and  42, White procures some  more names for
 exhibition,  to prop his failing credit, by showing, that so far as the
 parties named  could judge, he showed no partiality or undue inter-
 est on the trial, and did not act as prompter.  That he did sit  close
 to the counsel, and, I believe, suggest questions in relation to Dr.
 Reyburn's paper during his (Dr. R.'s) examination, I do aver;  that
 that  paper  was brought into  court at his instance, he confesses on
 page 63  of  "White's Remark," (July  No. St. Louis Medical  and
 Surgical Journal;) he was the only one who could  have desired its
 production,  as it was not to M. Dugan's interest to produce it.  Mr.
 Murdoch's letter, published by White, himself, shows that the coun-
 sel  depended on his  information in bringing the suit.   His agency
 and interest in the  matter I have  already shown, I need, therefore,
say nothing further  on  this topic.   The juror he refers to on  page 
27
 29 (Mr. Lightcap) assured me that he is there misrepresented—he
 had no communication with White on the subject, and what he did
 say at the public lecture would not justify White's remarks.
   Next in order, No. 45, appears a garbled  sentence from Dr. Rey-
 burn's  pamphlet, which should read, "extra copies of the offensive
 number of the journal, which were indecently hawked and  sold in
 the street, it is presumable as the private speculation of my venal
 assailant."   It can  be seen that the pride of the assailant is sorely
 touched by the suggestion  of what Dr. R. merely presumed to be
 the cnse, and as  a refutation of  that  presumption, he  publishes Mr.
 Penn's note, which informs us who paid for the extra numbers, not
 however, who ordered and  was responsible that they should be paid
 for.  These facts Mr. Penn admitted to Dr. Reyburn, in presence of
 Dr. R.  P. Chase, a few days after White's last pamphlet appeared.
 Dr. C. can be referred to in proof of this statement.   Mr. P. stated
 "that  Mr.  White ordered  the  extra numbers,  Dr.   White being
 responsible for the payment;  Mr. W., however, did not  take them,
 and of  course they became Dr.  White's,  per  contract," who had to
 make some disposition of them,  so  then  they were exposed  for sale
 on Main street—he, of course, having no interest in  them, oh no,
 not he, he never  speculates in such filthy literature, he is above it,
 he only leaves it  to his namesake.   Well, of the houses that attempt-
 ed to sell the extensive edition of Dr. White's Works, one  paid the
 publisher  for fifty  copies, gross  receipts if  ail were sold, $12 50—
 the other was charged  with  thirty copies, amounting, at  retail, to
 $7 50—an extensive and profitable business truly.  As Dr. Reyburn
 was glorified in  those extra numbers, (which it  is yet presumable
 were Dr.  White's private collection  for speculation, his proof to the
 contrary notwithstanding,) it was very natural that when  he  saw the
 Medical Journal, for the first time in its existence, hawked in the
 newspapers as for sale at  a  bookstore on Main street, that he should
 inquire for what object and by what authority it was done.  The object
 was exposed in the advertisement itself, namely, the "journal contains
 a-very caustic article from the pen of Thos. J. White," &c.   It was
 for the  more extended dissemination of his vituperation and slanders,
 then, that the book was exposed for sale—yet he  had  no interest in
 the  " extra numbers," no,  not  he.   Not then having that  sense of
 decency, which would  teach him to be ashamed of his Billino-sgate
 essay, White was probably  really proud of his first literary  produc-
 tion, but since, being fully  awakened to  a sense  of the degradation
 of his work,  he is anxious to back out of as much connection with
 it as possible, and, therefore, lets his readers know that not he but
 others were charged with it.
   No. 46, refers to the fact that Dr. McCabe returned  White's letter
 unanswered.   White publishes a note from Mr. Kelso, acknowledg-
 ing that Dr. McCabe did hand back the letter without reply, merely
 stating to  Mr. K., "that  he had kept out of  this difficulty thus far,
and  he  would have nothing to do with it," &c. A little further on'
as if forgetting this,  White represents  Dr.  McCabe as givin°- the 
28
 very information to Dr. Fallen, which he  had refused to him, thus
 violating his determination expressed  to Mr. K., and  treating White
 as contemptuously as he had done before.   By Dr. Pallen's request,
 Dr. Reyburn, it appears, stated in his pamphlet, that he (Dr. P.) had
 forbidden White using Dr.  McCabe's information, unless  by his own
 express authority, and it was to obtain this authority White address-
 ed Dr. McC, who  refused, as  above, to hold any communication
 with him.  There is no indelicacy in  here stating, what I know to
 be the fact, namely, that neither Dr. McC. or his  venerable partner
 will hold any communication, professional  or otherwise with White;
 it is but a few years since the latter disappointed  public expectation
 in not shooting Dr. Lane, as he had threatened, for refusing to meet
 him in consultation.   But it has always  happened that this amiable
 threat,  however often made towards his  professional competitors,
 never amounts to any thing  explosive or dangerous. His guns are as
 harmless  as popguns and never go off.
   Nos. 48 and 49.  White here publishes a letter from Dr. Bar-
 bour, stating the reasons he gave  White for refusing  to publish his
 first paper.   White  seemingly  wishes  to create the impression that
 Dr. B. did not object to it on account of style.  Be this as it may, it
 was certainly a valid objection, and one that would do credit to any
 editor.  Dr. J. B. Johnson's  expression  to Dr. Reyburn, as the reason
 Dr  Barbour gave him for not  publishing White's article, was, that
 he objected not only on account ol its  style, but because its publica-
 tion might be construed into an act of hostility to the other journal
 in our city.  Dr. Reyburn varies in expression only, not in fact, from
 Dr. Johnson's statement.   Dr. R. has Dr. Johnson's authority for

 * Th? remaining  numbers in White's pamphlet are  not worth
 noticing   They  but involve  individual  opinions, or petty issues,
 which he has created to arouse prejudices against those he attacks
 They are irrelevant to the discussion, and he is  welcome to all the
 capital he  can make out  of  them.  They may take with  some
 but  they will  only reflect  on  their author, in the estimation of the
 mfeUigent.   Thus in number  20, White vainly attempts to sneer a
 and ridicule Dr. Reyburn's examination of the patient, and without
 Ending  to  offer "anything  like  proof, assumes what ijfounmd
 false of his motives  and acts.   Every unprejudiced  medical reader
 will discover that Dr. Reyburn took the ordinary means of arriving
 at the facts of Mrs. Dugan's disease-he  questioned her  n^
 to its features, using such language only as  she  could  unders arici
 in his examination on the trial, as he  was speaking to an intelligent
jury, he perhaps used more educated words.  By what other means
would" White himself, or any other phvsician detect disease, than by
questioning the patient.  White no doubt  flattered himself that the
would-beJmartness expended on this part of  his subject, was grati-
fyino- to his readers,  and elevating to his own reputation for severity
and wit;  but he neglected  stating, or indicating by marks of quota-
tion  that  £>it was all borrowed, all second hand roar," all kidnapped 
29
ridicule, which the counsel  for the defence had already ineffectually
used  before the Jury  on the trial.    In  various numbers,  White
regales himself, (not his readers, for none  are  so shallow as to be
duped by his artifices,) with low abuse and  appeal to prejudices, in
alluding to Dr. Reyburn's  statement  of the degraded  character of
some of White's pliant tools and witnesses.  The sentiments he at-
tributes to  Dr. R. are known by every one  acquainted with  him to
be entirely foreign  to his conduct and pretensions.  Dr. Reyburn's
general conduct affords a full defence against all of White's charges
or insinuations, and the latter's very remarks on  Dr. R. is proof that
there is a difference in repute between them, which engenders all his
assailant's  hatred, envy, malice and uncharitableness.
  It but remains for  me, now, to notice some  detached  passages,
scattered on various pages of White's pamphlet, and close  this dis-
cussion.  I have endeavored to avoid any imitation of White's style
or temper in this notice, for  to return him the  vituperation he  has
gloried in,  in his pages, would be but " to throw  dirt at a scavenger."
I candidly acknowledge" that in using low abuse, slang epithets, and
ruffianly language,  he  is  without any approach  to an equal  in  the
profession  here.  Any intemperate  expressions  I may use, I trust
will be excused on  the plea  of the occasion.  It is difficult to keep
one's  temper and guard the  tongue, when such  foul, wholesale infa-
my and indecency has  been practised as  is exhibited in White's
pamphlet.
  The pettifogging falsifier,  to gratify  his malignant spite, on page
35 of  his pamphlet, attempts to mortify Dr. Reyburn by grossly mis-
representing his testimony.   He selects detached  passages from it,
and gives them a perverted  construction—excluding from view all
qualifying or explanatory sentences contained in the  very publica-
tion he was quoting.   None but one malignantly incensed and  un-
principled, and totally irresponsible  in every way, as White  notori-
ously is, would feel  the malignant necessity of making capital with
such  vile means.    The imputation he casts on Dr. R. is as unjust
and unproven as it is base and cowardly.   To  prove White's reck-
less malignity and  wilful falsehood, let us see he  pretends to show
that Dr. Reyburn testified falsely.   He quotes the opinion of  Drs.
Pallen, Stith, and Pollak, first made up and published months after
the trial, to show that Dr.  Reyburn, when testifying to an opinion,
on that occasion, must have known the  fact these physicians state.
Drs.  Pallen,  Stith,  and Pollak,  examined the patient  in July;  Dr.
Reyburn  testified  on  the trial  the  preceding  March.   The testi-
mony of  Drs. Moore and C. Lane, also quoted to contradict  Dr.
R.'s   opinion; the  latter  was forbidden  by the Court to hear, and
they so far from contradicting him, testify that when they examined
Mary Dugan in  1814, there was then artificial anus,  but no  her-
nia, either above or below it.  Consequently, Dr. R. could not have
known anything  contrary  to  the  opinion  he  testified to even
admitting that he  correctly understood the counsel's question,  and
that White hits correctly interpreted both question and answer.   But 
30
the question was so put by the counsel as to be understood by Dr.
R. to be aiming at the fact, whether hernia could  be below (within)
an artificial anus, that is, definitely applying this  question, whether,
in 1840, hernia could have existed  in M. Dugan's case, within the
intestinal fistula in the groin.   To that question, Dr. R. answered
with evident hesitation, "I would think there could be no possibility
of hernia below an artificial anus," thus showing, both by his man-
ner and words, that he but gave an immatured  opinion on a medical
question, probably for the first time ever presented  to his mind.  Mr.
Polk, the counsel who  put the question,  I am  informed, understood
White, in  his examination, to assert the  contrary of this opinion of
Dr. R.  ; Dr. George Johnson who sat behind him at the time, told
him it was a medical absurdity, and this suggested Mr. Polk's ques-
tioning Dr. Reyburn on the point, as I understand he has explained
to the latter since White published his slander.  Dr. Reyburn's en-
tire testimony in the case, is shown,  by reference  to the exact verbi-
age of  it in counsel's notes, to have been  expressed  in the cautious
manner of the conscientious witness, and was clearly understood, so
far as he related circumstances occurring before his first visit to the
patient, in June, 1840, to be made from the admissions of the patient
herself.  This last he clearly expressed in two different parts of his
examination, published in the May number, 1846, of St. Louis Med-
ical Journal, p. 546, but is  carefully excluded  from quotation or
reference in White's pamphlet.   Dr. R., apparently not apprehend-
ing  that the published report of the  trial  would  be subjected to
malicious criticism  and perversion,  or that there  would arise petty
cavillings on  its  slightest words or unavoidable  erroneous expres-
sions, [provided its general  sense was correct,) transcribed the testi-
mony,  (over thirty printed  pages,)  at the editor's request, without
being critically attentive to its every word.  The succeeding extracts,
however, accurately copied from counsel's notes of the evidence, will
answer all of  White's malicious strictures  on the testimony.  Dr.
Reyburn, stated  in the  commencement of his examination, that his
first visit to Mary Dugan  was in June, 1840, two months after the
asserted malpractice, and that he " then received from the patient an
account of her case, as it had been."  Mr. Polk's notes of this part
of Dr.  Reyburn's examination, which have  been  copied by another
for me, run thus:  u I first saw  her (Mrs. Dvgan) in June, 1840,"
&c; " I got from her  a history of her case, as it had been; about
9th Apjril was taken with symptoms of ileus,''' &c, and then fol-
lows the detail of what the  patient represented as occurring up to
the occasion of Pr. R.'s visit.   Further on in these notes,  Dr. R. is
represented as stating,  " I understood from, plaintiff that opening
existed before any was made by Dr. A."  Mr.  Whittlesey's notes
of  the  same  examination,  accurately  quoted, read thus:  " Saw
plaintiff in June, 1840"—" / got from  her a history of  the case,
beginning 9th Apr J; she was taken with symptoms of ileus," &c.
These  notes of Mr. W.'s are fuller than the  former, differ slightly
from them |n phraseology, and having been used in making  out the 
31
published report, this  latter can be  referred  to by readers  to  show
what Dr. R. did testify.  The  following further  quotations from
them are requisite to correct White's misrepresentations: "/(Dr.
Reyburn) last saio her (Mrs. D.) July Ath, 1840—canal then nearly
closed;" ^'Itwas my impression that by the course of treatment
she would be cured;" " I reported  her cured on authority of Dr.
Adreon;" " I was led to conclude she had disease of the caecum."
These quotations, when compared with White's remarks on the tes-
timony, will show how malignant and unscrupulous he has been in
fabricating his charges and remarks.
   But White's malevolence leads him into still grosser wilful falsi-
fication of Dr. Reyburn's  testimony.  On page  36, he  says, " yet
Dr. R. swears positively, (for hearsay testimony would  have been
excluded,) that perforation existed  before any opening was made."
What Dr. R. did testify on this point may be known by referring to
his exact words as I have just quoted them from the counsel's notes;
and that White's remarks on the subject are  false, is thereby clearly
proven.  Even if Dr. R.'s exact words did not explain, as they do,
that what he stated was the patient's representation  to him, such
was implied by his admission that he first visited her in June, and
the circumstance in relation to which  he was answering, (for this
part of his evidence was drawn from him by counsel's questions,)
occurred the previous  April.
  But  there is a second  gross falsehood in this one  sentence of
White's, and he must have  known it to have been false when he
penned  it, for he had the report of the  trial  from which he was
quoting, to inform him en the point, and he was too attentive  to Dr.
Reyburn's examination on the trial not to know the contrary of what
he states.  He  asserts that "hearsay testimony  would  have been
excluded."  When Mrs. Cox was proceeding to give in her testi-
mony, the substance  of a  conversation with Mrs. Dugan, in  1840,
the counsel objected to surh  hearsay testimony being  admitted; the
court overruled the objection, and her  hearsay evidence was then
received.  The counsel's  notes, as well  as the published report of
the trial (p. 531) record this  interruption by  counsel,  and also o-ive
Mrs. C.'s hearsay evidence.  How could  the patient's symptoms be
known  in court, unless given as hearsay testimony.   Portions of Dr.
Reyburn's evidence,  as I have  shown, were  given  with the full
explanation that they were the patient's admissions to him, conse-
quently were received as  hearsay testimony.  So  these assertions
of White's are hereby proven to be wilful false statements.  He
a'so quotes  the following  sentence of Dr. Reyburn's evidence:  "  I
am under the impression that she  (Mrs. D.) left  without his (Dr.
Adreon's) knowledge or approval," and proceeds to imply that Dr.
R. swore to it as to a fact*  Now  Dr.  Reyburn  was  then answer-
ing questions in  cross-examinations, so  had to give  this evidence
either as an impression, or  as a fact positively known; and, as  a
conscientious  witness, he  gave it as an impression, as his words
show.   The sentence in  his examination, immediately preceding 
32
the  one  quoted,  proves  that he  was answering questions rela-
ting to  my own admissions in regard to the  patient's leaving
town,  and it  was some question  of counsel's,  tending to elicit
whether he knew I had approved of her departure, that drew from
him the answer quoted.  This garbling and  perverting the  testi-
mony, this wilful  misrepresentation  of the nature and circumstan-
ces of it, is  the most shallow and contemptible knavery  of all
employed by White in his pamphlet.   It is not even  fifth rate
roguery, so palpably weak, false and infamous  is it.  No one is
ignorant enough to be  duped by it.
  On  page  45, White  asserts in substance, that in  my reply to
Knox I misrepresented testimony—that there was no discrepancy
between his and K.'s evidence in the case.  No medical witness
was permitted to hear evidence on trial, until he had been  exam-
ined, and as White was examined after Knox, he cannot assert this
on his  own authority.  As  he  calls  for documentary authority, as
evidence of assertions,  I must inform him that it was  just that I
used;  the counsel's notes of testimony corroborate what I advanced,
and the late " Extra"  account of the case by Knox, makes the
discrepancy  in their statements even  more glaring than  it was
before.   White also asserts that Knox and himself were specially
prohibited testifying as to  what were Mrs. Dugan's admissions of
symptoms, &c.—hearsay  testimony  being excluded  in  evidence.
Mrs. Cox gave hearsay  evidence, after an attempt had been  made
by counsel to exclude it, and  I have already shown  that Dr. Rey-
burn gave such testimony.  White and Knox were not interrupted
in the course of their examination, they did not  offer to give the
details of  the  patient's  admissions,  or  history, in evidence, and
there is nothing in the counsel's  notes to  show that  such was the
case at the trial.  One  of  them (White) could not say that the
opening in the groin he examined in 1844, was that  which he saw
in 1840, " it was so long ago."  Dr. Henry testified that the open-
ing seen  since  1844 was  not that which he examined in 1840.
Knox, in his " extra," asserts there was no sloughing when he and
White first visited  the case.  White testified he " could not say
whether there had been « a cut,' then"—that " there had been a
sloughing when  he  first saw the  case."   (See counsel's notes and
report of trial.)   Dr. Trudeau, whom,  I understood, visited at or
about the same time with W. and K., testified that  the  groin was
covered with a charcoal poultice, when he saw  it, which applica-
tion, by Dr. Syke's testimony, had been prescribed to expedite the
sloughing process.  So that when these parties visited  the case, it
Was after sloughing had set in.                              .
   White  asserts  (page 46)  that Dr. Simmons denies ever  having
given Dr. Reyburn any such  imputation  as  that charged  on his
authority, on  page 15,*of "Adreon's discussion."  There is no im-
putation there charged as  Dr. Simmons',  and none  given  as  Dr.
Reyburn's.  The fads there  stated I learned  from Dr. R., and
have  given them in my own phraseology, with my own reflections 
33
on them.   The following extract  is Dr.  Simmons' written  repre-
sentation of the facts, given in reply to a note from Dr. R., desiring
to know whether the statement on his authority, on the page refer-
red to, was or was  not correct: "Dn Simmons was invited  to see
the case, (Mrs. Dugan's,) and not knowing the nature of the J mis-
understanding' consented  to visit the  patient with Dr. White, the
following day."   In the interval, having " heard the reported inter-
ference of  Drs. White  and Knox, he (Dr. S.) declined fulfilling his
engagement, and called the ensuing morning on Dr. K. to state
his reasons, and also to learn the  nature of the disease of Mrs. D.
Dr. Knox then and there stated to Dr. S.  that there was no  doubt
the woman had hernia; that Dr. Adreon had  maltraated the case;
had cut an intestine, and  that the woman would probably die."
Now if the reader will take  the trouble to compare the above with
my remarks on  the disputed  page 15, he will  discover  that Dr.
Simmons corrects  only my phraseology, and sustains in  stronger
terms my version of the facts.   The imputation disputed by White,
consists in my asserting that Knox, when on  the witness stand, did
not confirm what he had related to Dr. Simmons,—and this I again
aver.   The phraseology of his evidence in the counsel's notes and
published  trial, proves, that  he could  not swear the patient had
hernia, or that "intestine had been there in her groin in the form
of hernia, and cut or not."  I have  elsewhere remarked on these
discrepancies; it  will be unnecessary for me to notice them again.
  As  regards White's  misrepresentations, on page 45, of my re-
marks  on  the note of Mr. Light, written in  1840, it is  hardly
requisite to explain, that the note then  spoken of by  Knox, to Dr.
M.  Martin and  myself, was, I understood, to Knox alone, as his
authority, and written  at his suggestion, and  not a note to White
and  Knox.   This latter note  was probably elicited as  an after-
thought.
  Before concluding this exposition of White's gross slanders and
falsehoods,  I  would speak  of his vehement vituperation of Dr.
Beaumont.   His  whole tirade against Dr. B. is a gross tissue of
wholesale abuse and unsupported  assertion.  His malignant false-
hood in regard to Dr. Beaumont's trial, originating in the  unhappy
partnership disputes of Beaumont and Sykes, will be best exposed
and refuted by  the  following  certificate,  which I have  obtained
from the jurors who tried the case:
  "• We have been  referred to a statement published by Dr. T. J.
White, asserting, that  in a late trial  for perjury, Dr. Wm. Beau-
mont ' escaped merited  punishment* aloine by the clemency of the
Jury.'  VVe were jurors in the trial referred to, and unhesitatingly
affirm the above statement to be untrue.   Our verdict of acquittal
was unanimously  rendered, from the testimony alone, without con-
siderations  of sympathy, and  without  our even leaving  the jury
box:  Signed by C. Rhodes,  John G. Shelton,  Geo.  Hoyle, David
Keith, Wm. Salisbury,  Jno.  Lee, J. B. Sickles, G. C. White,  Smith
B. Robinson, William  II. White.   The remaining two jurors, M. 
31
Lewis Clark  and J. T. Martin are absent,  but  the  statement  of
the others stamps  the assertion of White as a base, unfounded
falsehood.
  In relation  to  Dr. Beaumont's partnership  difficulties, which
White refers  to as  if with the  hope he might annoy or injure him
by the allusion, I need not say one word;  the public here are well
able, to  decide for themselves  the  merits  of that  controversy.
There was no mutually understood contract  between  the  parties,
hence arose their unhappy disputes, and any one can  see how, un-
der such circumstances, honest differences in  opinion  might occur
between them.  A report  in chancery on  a partnership case,
neither  discusses nor decides moral issues; it can only show in what
manner by usage in equity, disputed assets and liabilities of a firm
should be divided.   White's  own partnerships have not I een with-
out disputes, criminations and recriminations;  his partners have
charged on him the grossest and most dishonorable acts.
  The reason why Dr. Beaumont's counsel  should object  to Dr.
Reyburn's paper on Mary Dugan's case being received in evidence
as to him, is  discovered on  page 552 of that paper.  Both part-
ners, B. and S., are there erroneously represented as attending be-
fore my operation, whereas Dr. Sykes alone  had visited  with me
up to that period.   This error arose  from their being partners at
the time and  both visiting the case immediately afterwards.
  White falsely asserts that because he questioned Dr. Beaumont's
skill, when called upon to testify in case of the State vs. Darnes, he
became his inveterate foe.   White, at the time,  was  reported  to
have volunteered his testimony, and it is a little remarkable, that
where testimony against Dr.  Beaumont's professional  skill is want-
ing, White, and his companion in the Dugan case, have ever been
found favorable and pliant witnesses—men, too, who  have  yet  to
establish character as surgeons, or even  be  generally known  to
have performed a single surgical operation.  But White's conduct
towards  Dr. Beaumont  had   been, long anterior to  the  time he
names,  a course of unmitigated hostility and abuse.  Early  in
1S39, Dr. B. had discovered  that  he  had attempted (as is, indeed,
his  general practice) to  take dishonorable advantage of him be-
hind the back, by appealing  to cunning insinuation and abuse, and
by operating  on the  inexperience and credulity of Dr. B.'s pa-
tients.   Finding him  too base to be trusted,  Dr. B. thenceforward
refused to hold any intercourse with him.  The case of Mrs. B—,
whom Dr. B. attended, wherein White would have prejudiced him,
may be  remembered  by fifoe latter,  and  a correspondence dated
about the same period, (1839.) which  Dr. B. refused to notice, may
recall facts to his mind, which attest the truth of  what  I  have
stated.
  Up to the summer of 1839, White was  an occasional visiter at
my office, and  at his last visit met Dr. Beaumont.   On this occa-
sion, White had desired the meeting to enable him to explain con-
duct to  Dr. B.  which had induced the latter to avoid any recogni- 
35
 lion of him.  Dr. B. being well satisfied that White but endeavor-
 ed to  falsify out of  the  difficulty,  indignantly threw  back  all
 attempt at amend, at the same time informing  White  that  any
 effort to change the then state of affairs would be useless, inasmuch
 as his character for honor  and veracity was considered  question-
 able  by the profession, and he himself knew it to be extremely
 doubtful.  White misrepresented  the  circumstances of this inter-
 view,  by glorifying himself for  the indignation with which  he
 boasted  he had treated the venerable Dr. Beaumont.  I felt my-
 self obliged  to  state  the  facts, to the annoyance, no doubt, and
 mortification of White, and from that time he has been the deter-
 mined enemy of both  Dr.  Beaumont and myself.  Mrs. Dugan's
 case, occurring  about a year after, was too  favorable an opportu-
 nity to be allowed to pass—hence the effort to turn it into the only
 speeies of revenge of which he is capable.   He has not the spirit
 to attempt to defend himself by any other means.  The handbill
 published by Dr. Sykes, immediately after the  issue of " White's
 remarks," contains remarks of such a nature that not one man in
 one thousand would suffer their insult, if life itself were  the for-
feiture;  but he took it meekly, notwithstanding his previous boasts
and threats, and has even licked the hand  that lashed  him.
  The unscrupulous character of White—his utter disregard of truth
and decency, and his reckless malignity, may be best seen when we
review his unsupported charges against Dr. Beaumont's  work on
Digestion.  Every physician who reads his strictures will discover
that they are but malignant, unfounded, undeserved falsehoods, and
could only have  been penned to  gratify degraded spite, and with
the vain hope that they might mortify Dr. Beaumont.   Dr. B., for-
 tunately, is as far above the reach  of such shafts,  as is their author
 beneath contempt.  To professional  readers no  defence  against
 White's remarks on the work  need be addressed; to those out of
 the profession it may be stated, that  the appreciation of the work
 in Europe, can be judged  from the fact, that within one year of its
 first publication in this country, it  was translated  into German and
 published  at  Leipzig.  Mr. A. Combe, as  he  says, " finding  the
 interest excited in Dr. B.'s experiments increased in proportion as
 their nature and value became known," has published editions of
 it with notes, in Edinburgh, since 1837.  It  also forms the chief
 materials of his work " On Diet and Digestion," which has reached
 several editions in  this country, and  in his  prefaces he  speaks in
 the highest  terms of the  importance of Dr. B.'s  researches assert-
 ing that " his results were more  direct and incontrovertible than
 those  of any previous  observer."   Dick, in his valuable treatise
 " On Digestion," quotes entire pages of Dr. B.'s "experiments on
 the gastric juice," and says, " it is difficult for his medical brethren
 adequately to express the deep  sense of their  obligations to Dr.
 Beaumont, for his important and  authoritative announcements: (n
 GG.)   This valuable work of Dick's was dedicated to Sir Benja-
 min  Brodie.   Swectser  in his  " Treatise  on   Digestion and its 
36
Disorders," makes extensive use of Dr. B.'s experiments, and says,
" though we have  on  record other cases of fistulous openings into
the stomach, yet this case (Dr. Beaumont's) was in a special man-
ner favorable for physiological experiment, inasmuch as the subject
enjoyed  remarkably good health."  Yet White makes a degraded
appeal to the ignorance  and prejudice of readers, by saying  Dr.
Beaumont "could  not or would not cure the hole in Alexis Saint
Martin's stomach, &c.  To cavil  on such a point, is about as rea-
sonable  as  to  condemn a surgeon  because an amputated limb
would not grow again.   To " cure the hole" was a physical im-
possibility, but  to save the patient was a triumph of skill.
   But White pushes his slanders against Dr. Beaumont to the most
reckless  extent.  He asserts, in  substance, that whatever merit
attaches to Dr.  Beaumont's work, justly belongs to Professors Dun-
glison and Emmett; " that the few experiments performed by Drs.
D. and E. were the only benefits  derived from this case."  In an-
other sentence  he says that Dr. B. " procured the services of Drs.
D. and E. to perform upon  this Canadian a series of experiments,
the credit of which he assigns to himself."   These statements are
grossly false—even White does not pretend to offer proof of them.
The series of experiments referred to  number over 250, and were
chiefly performed  during a period of eight years, between May,
1825, and November, 1833, at the  military stations on our northern
frontier,  where Drs. D.  and E.  probably never  were.  At the
microscopical experiments at Washington,  Dr. Dunglison was pres-
ent, but it is the other experiments which are so profusely employed
in the treatises  I have named.  Dr. Dunglison draws largely from
« Dr. Beaumont's experiments on the gastric juice," for materials in
his "Elements ef Hygiene," as also in his" Physiology-compli-
ments Dr. B. for his skill in treating the subject, as well as for his
courtesy in inviting him  to examine it-yet no effort has ever been
made by him to disparage Dr. Beaumont's  claims to the onginahty
of the  experiments.   Dr. Beaumont expresses his  acknowledg-
ment^ inTis work, to Drs. Dunglison and  Emmett for the interest
and  encouragement shown him in his labors, and if either of them
dhcove'ed any attempt to claim the tribute due ^em, self-regard
and  reeard  for truth, would  compel them  to expose it,  But the
meriogf Dr. B.'s experiments belong to himself, alone, by the righ
ol nine years' labor, and expenditure  fromhis private purse of the
     of  £700.  (Vide  Combe's  preface  to his edition of tfeau
sum
mont's work, page 7.)                       .    w,.,      r\r
  As regards the carping  of two  critics, besides White, on Dr.
Beaumont's work, so  gloatingly quoted  in W.'s pamphlet I need
but remark, that  it is  but contemptible snarling; no publication,
howsoever eminently useful and valuable it may be, can escape the
gnawing of such mites, which, like the worms in cheese, may dete-
riorate it with some, but enhances its value to others.
  The other imputations cast on Dr. Beaumont, in White s pamph-
let, are like the foregoing, namely, mere  unsupported assertions— 
37
base appeals to reader's prejudices  in  matters  on which  they are
uninformed, and all set forth on White's own unexceptionable tes-
timony, alone.  From his proven turpitude, I need not remark on
the value of such  authority,   He has availed  himself of caves-
dropping informants,  of street rumors, of prejudiced representa-
tions, and of low scurrilous inuendoes, to reflect  on Dr. B.   He is
welcome to such testimony—it is of a  like character with the gen-
eral evidence of his pamphlet.
  Dr. Clarke's name  is, I  am informed  by  him, used without his
authority, on White's 40th page,  as  must also be Dr. Call's—the
latter has been absent in Florida for many years.  The contempt-
ible insinuation  attempted  to be  cast  on  Dr.  Beaumont,  as if
endorsed by the above gentlemen, is  White's perversion  of truth.
These gentlemen are, I am sure, very  far from endorsing any such
calumny  as that put forth by White.   Dr. Clarke and Dr. C. Camp-
bell can be referred to for the  true representation of the case.
  Dr. Meredith Martin's name is also  used on page 46, without his
knowledge or consent.  He says he had not seen either my  publi-
cation  or White's until a week after the issue of the  latter, so could
not have asserted  or denied any thing in either, as White asserts.
I am perfectly willing to be judged by any correction Dr. M. may
give of what I have stated, provided it comes from  himself direct,
and not through the perverting channel of partisan reporters.
   Dr.  McPheeters' name is also used on page 40, without any au-
thority attached to what is there stated in connection with it, save
and except Thos, J. White's ipse dixit. The value of what this
veracious individual may state on his own, or even with his worthy
companion M. Dugan's authority,  may be arithmetically  or geo-
metrically expressed by 0.   His regard for  truth must  be an as-
sumed quantity in any calculation we make  of the sum  of his
moral qualities.  He  is in a dilemma in regard to Dr. McP.'s  letter,
published in  Dr. Reyburn's pamphlets, so creeps out of his difficulty
by the only means known  to  him, namely, by bold  repetition of
falsehood.   White vapored behind Dr. McPheeters' back, boasting
of  what  he  would do, &c.   Dr. McP. exposed  his gasconade in
the letter referred to, and threw falsehood full in his teeth.  White
now attempts to  evade the  contempt  his empty boasting, earned
him by a cowardly, base, and  false assertion.  Had  he the "satis-
factory evidence," as he  pretends, he  would  have  published it.
The tone of Dr.  McP.'s letter may  be judged  by  the following
extract from it:
   " When  the trial for malpraxis came on, believing, as I then did,
and do now, that Dr.  White was the instigator of  said trial, and that
his conduct in the matter was unprofessional, and in the highest de-
gree reprehensible, I felt it to be my  duty, as one of the editors of
a medical journal, to speak  of such  conduct in terms of merited
severity.  I see no reason  now to withdraw anything that I said in
my article in the April number of the St. Louis Medical and Sur-
gical  Journal,  and I wish it  to be considered  as  my  deliberate 
38
opinion, notwithstanding Dr. White says in his paper, that he holds
me " blameless."  I am certainly not entitled to, nor can I accept
his  acquittal.  His abuse I can  stand, but I must protest against
any thing from him in the shape of praise.
  "So long as I am connected with the medical  press, I shall
shrink from no responsibility  which may devolve on me as editor,
nor fail  to hold up the  conduct of individuals to condemnation,
when I think it  calculated to outrage the decency of the profes-
sion.  This I shall do, regardless of  consequences, but, at the same
time,  acknowledging the most rigid personal accountability.
                    " Most respectfully,
                        " Your obd't. serv't.,
                                 " WM. M. McPHEETERS.
  " To Thomas Reyburn, M. D., St. Louis."
  Reference to, and a call is made by White, for a letter from Dr.
Sykes, to me.  It was my  intention to publish our entire corres-
pondence, as well as Dr. Sykes' handbill, to which the latter refers
me in his letter.   I  have already included an extract of  the letter
in these  pages, and if not  forbidden  by  the length of this paper,
will publish it entire.  If 1 do not this latter, I will show the letter
to any one desirous of reading it.
  To reduce the limits of this  paper, I  am  compelled  to notice
some  issues raised by White, in shorter terms than I had  originally
intended.  He malignantly attempts to reflect on Mayor Camden's
appointing Dr. Reyburn consulting physician  to the City Hospital,
and states only such facts and imputations as suited his malevolent
purpose.  When the appointments to the hospital were about being
made, I, in my private capacity, and not officially  as a member of
the Board of Aldermen, suggested Drs. Pope, Reyburn, H. Lane,
and others, to the Mayor, as suitable  appointees  for the medical
offices.   Mr.  Camden then called  with  me  on  Dr. Reyburn, to
know if  he would  perform the official duties, and on receiving his
answer the  Mayor  nominated, and the  Board of Aldermen  con-
firmed him to the office.  This  was all the communication which
passed between Dr.  R.  and  myself on the subject.  I moved in
the matter without any wish or suggestion being expressed by Dr.
R., and without any selfish motive or object to govern my action.
I had the highest  opinion of Dr. Reyburn—have  trusted my  own
health, and the health of those dearest to me, to his judgment, and
could conscientiously and  disinterestedly recommend him  to  any
professional office,
  The expression attributed to  Dr.  Sykes, (p. 37,) that neither Dr.
Beaumont, Adreon, or Reyburn, considered Mrs.  Dugan's  disease
tuphlo-enteritis, nor was it treated as  such" in 1840, is mere  quib-
bling on  words.   Dr. Reyburn  never treated the case at all—that
is, he was not asked to prescribe for  it,  but visited it as an object
of medical interest  and  curiosity.   Dr.  Beaumont,  in  his letter,
uses the term " tuphlo-enteritis"  as a quotation from Dr. Reyburn's
paper; his entire sentence shows  this,  as well  as the marks of 
39
quotation over the word.  The opinion of M. Dugan's  case in
1840, was, that there was  spontaneous perforation of the bowels—
the location would indicate that it was of the caecum.   The Med-
ico-Chirurgical Review,.for January. 1840, (reprinted in N.York,)
containing Burne's report  on "tuphlo-enteritis," was delivered here
before March of that year.  Dr. M. Martin and  myself were sub-
scribers, and it was during my attendance then on Mrs.  Dugan,
that I related to Dr. M., and also  to Dr. Campbell, the symptoms
of the  case.  Dr. Martin remarked the resemblance it bore  to
Burne's cases, and referred me to  the review.   I had not read the
review, up to that time,  yet Dr.  Martin identified my case with
those of Burne.  This  one fact shows that the  history then given
by me of M. Dugan's symptoms, was the  same as recorded in Dr.
Reyburn's paper three years  after.  The cunning of man is not
competent  to conceive  or carry  out  the  scheme  of  accurately
adapting a false representation of symptoms to suit a description
of disease he has never read.   I then referred those attending Mrs.
D. with me, to Burne's paper, as affording a precedent of her case.
   Every issue raised by White, every charge in his pamphlet, now
recoils upon him.  The witnesses whom he quotes, deny the truth of
his representations, and I now publish  him as an infamous slander-
er—the vindictive traducer of those he has assailed.  I throw back
in his face every offensive  word  and  epithet used by him in  his
pamphlet.   I cast in his  foul teeth—if possible, in  stronger terms
than did Dr. Beaumont—my estimate of his infamy.  In terms of
as cool contempt as did Drs. Reyburn and McPheeters, I repeat
their remarks against him; publish him as a low calumnious writer;
a gross falsifier, whom the medical editors could not believe, and
the unprincipled instigator, agent, or tool, in my persecution in this
Dugan case.  I have  analyzed his  publication and exposed  his
ingenious tergiversation  and mendacity, and having thus shown off
the work and its author,  it but remains forme to state, that  nothing
hereafter issuing from the same  source will  be noticed.   I now
rest the decision of all issues  in  this controversy on the compara-
tive  character and standing of the respective  parlies involved, and
on what has already been written of this case.  In Dr. Reyburn's
publication, and in reply to " Knox's  Extra," I have given what I
hoped was  a dispassionate, and  declare was, so far as my know-
ledge  extends, a true  representation  of the  circumstances of the
Duo-an case, and on  these publications rest my cause  before my
readers.
   My assailant, it is notorious,  has been for years the annoyance
of professional men, here.  His conduct has  forced his exclusion
from association with many of the  most reputable amongst them,
There is a meek reference  to his  standing in this particular, in his
first publication, for he finds  it necessary to sny„that  he is by na-
ture, education and habit,  averse to all disputation—that he has
endeavored to sustain the good will and harmony of the profession,
yet has but partially succeeded, and reaped  a succession  of gross
< 
                               10

 injury upon  injury, and insult upon insult, for twelve or fourteen
 years.  This confession,  properly explained, means he has been
 treated by  the  profession with the  contempt he deserved, for a
 period  longer  than  those connected  with the  Dugan case have
 resided here.
   For many years I  have been subjected to secret annoyances
 growing out of White's  enmity.   Impotent  attempts to  mortify
 me  by  means of  newspaper  squibs, anonymous notes, and  other
 petty arts, have beset me—the last  missile of the  kind appeared
 just after White's  pamphlet.   They  could  have  come but from the
 one quarter, and  indicated  by contents  and circumstances that
 they were  the  vindictive thrusts of  my  unprincipled and  das-
 tardly foe.
   This declaration of  intended silence On  my part, will but incite
 my  assailant to  repetition of attacks.   I  shall  not  notice them.
 He may cite new testimony,  may trepan  parties into admissions
 that they cannot deliberately attest,  or by some third person assert
 that such and such  hath been said  against me.   I  will not notice
 his secret  examinations,  or exparte  inquisitions, or second  hand
 statements, or be  drawn  into an endless controversy about  what
 the public are already disgusted with.  I will  not expose any wit-
 ness to his  coarse invective, to his  degraded insinuations of mo-
 tives, which could only  be  found in the foul  breast  of  one  as
 incensed and vindictive as my adversary.  To amplify the discus-
 sion of his acts would  be inconsistent with the plan and object of
 this  paper, which has even treated indulgently the conduct of one
 who would not if he could spare an adversary.  In  his essay he
 vouches  for his own honor and purity,  and seems, by vehement
 protestations, desirous to establish his respectability;  the public,
 here, have knowledge  enough to judge  of these things  for them-
 selves, and I now leave it to them.
   I am well aware that few, if any,  to whom  this controversy will
 be sent, will take the trouble to wade through this  wearisome but
 necessary repetition.  I would however  request of such as  may
 feel any interest in it, to turn to the testimony here given, (in every
 instance before witnesses,) by the very persons  whom White quoted
 in his late publication, as giving evidence against me, or my views
 of the case.   They will there find that White  has descended to the
 basest falsehood and misrepresentations, and in one instance he has not
 even visited the dwelling of the party quoted, for years, and the tes-
 timony given as hers, must, according to  her own account, be false.
 I most sincerely regret that the name  of any lady should be drawn
 into  the affair, but as White's first pamphlet brought  them forward
 as witnesses, and his  second brought  in others, it was then beyond
 my power to prevent it.
  From  White's expression in his  first  publication " that  he was
prepared to defend  his character by all moral, and if  needs be, phys-
ical means," it might  have been  expected  that  some more  manly
way would  be taken  by my antagonist to  settle this affair than the 
41
 repetition of low abuse and infamous  falsehoods.   The first  missile
 sent, after '• White's remarks" appeared, was the letter published in
 hand-bill form by Dr. Sykes.   In that, White's proverbial gasconade
 is fully set forth,  and reference made to circumstances, which  would,
 if any thing could rouse a spark of  manly feeling, have called upon
 White to execute his threat.   But the adversary was meek, and he
 not only took Dr. Sykes' taunts calmly, but  sought a reconciliation
 with  him, and then went on  his way and falsified Dr. S.'s remarks
 in regard to this case.  After this came  Dr. Beaumont's withering
 scornful letter, Dr. Reyburn's  cool  expression  of contempt for and
 disregard of his low assailant, (for  which White in his last pam-
 phlet calls him an  aristrocrat—what a  body of aristocrats the pro-
 fession here are if this  be a mark,)  and  then Dr.  McPheeters' bold
dash of falsehood in  White's teeth, and his  reiteration of the opin-
ions which had given offence.  But  all this has been borne patiently,
like  the twelve or  fourteen  year's  persecution, insult  and  injury
which he asserts in his first pamphlet he has  suffered.  As it appears
then that  White's moral and physical means  of defence refer  to no-
thing more dangerous than the  reiteration of abuse, the multiplica-
*'.on by him of falsehood and slander, and as readers are pretty well
wearied by this time  with his paper  bullets, he may fire away, " all
alone by himself," for the rest of his mortal days.
                   ERRATA AM) ADDENDA.
Page 4—Right extreme word, last line but one, for " of read "upo...
Page 14—Eleventh line, between "asserting'' and " hernia,'' read " that the case
     was."
Page 24—Sixth line, for " altered" read " entered."
Page 1G—Fifth line from bottom, for "p. 55" read " p 555.''
G 
 
APPENDIX.
  The foregoing pages were prepared  for press early in  June; cir*
cumstances,  sickness,  &c,  prevented  its being  placed in  printer's
hands  until  towards  the  middle of  that month.   An  attempt to
reduce the size of the  pamphlet has retarded its progress through the
press, and may  have  left it imperfect in some particulars.   I am
compensated for  this  delay, as accident has lately  enabled  me to
procure the statement of the Myer family, who are quoted by White,
and I  now Can give their testimony as further evidence  of White's
impostures.
  I visited Mr. Myer  with  Mr. Wollkoff, a respectable and educa^-
ted German, who  keeps an Academy in  South  Second Street.  In
taking him with me  I sought to insure that the attestation of Mr.
and Mrs. Myer should be given fairly and understanding^ by them,
and without any possible error arising from  our  differences in
language.
   White's  representations  of  statements of Jno. G. and  Barbara
Myer, ran thus—page 5, White's pamphlet:  " John G. and Barbara
Myer, say, that other  physieians were sent for by her (Mrs. Dugan's)
request."   On page 7, Jno. G. and Barbary Myer are represented to
confirm Mrs. Remhimeris statement, as  there quoted, and  say Mrs.
Dugan " was hot cured when  she left St. Louis, 1840 ; was hauled
to the river on a dray ;  Mrs.  Dugan rented of us."  On page'  11,
12 and 13, they are  represented as  confirming Mrs. Reinhimer's
statements on  said pages, and  on other pages they may be quoted as
testifying to something, all  of  which is explained in the  following:
   " Mr. John  G. Myer, and Barbara Myer his wife, being present,
were  examined, and  state  that  they  lived corner  of Florida and
Main  street, in April,  1840, and rented to Mary  Dugan the garret of
their house ; he wanted her to leave  the house and so stated to her;
Mrs. Waddingham paid the rent. There was a report in  circulation
in the neighborhood that she (Mrs.D.) was a bad woman, but of this he
knows nothing personally;  neither he  nor his wife were ever in
Mrs. Dugan's room during the whole time she lived there.  Mrs.
Mary Ann Reinhimer is my  daughter.  He further states that he
never o-ave a written  or oral statement to but one person, and that
person he thinks was Dr. White;  he stated to  him  that he  knew
nothing about the case, and to all his questions,  which were numer-
ous, he answered he knew nothing.   His daughter,  (Barbara) who
was present, recollects that during her sickness some physician called
to see her, (Mrs. Dugan,) and she sent him away and would not let
him attend her.  Miss B. Myer is now nineteen years old,  and was in 
44
the room of Mrs. Dugan and recollects well what she states'of her send-
ing the Doctor away.           "JOHN G. MYER,
                              "BARBARA  MYER, his Wife.
  "Signed in presence of) RUD0LPH WOLLKOFF."
         witness,         )
  " He further stated he did not know where she went, or how she
went away, and so stated to Dr.  White."
  I visited Mr. and Mrs. Reinhimer, and the  following passages,
represented in White's pamphlet as Mrs. R.'s statements,  were con-
tradicted by the certificate appended.   " Drs. White and Knox came
and took charge of the case at her (Mrs. Dugan's) request"—page 5,
pamphlet; "I examined her in  July, 1840, and  the  wound  in her
side was then discharging freely. She was  placed on a  dray and
hauled to the river, not being able to  travel without assistance"—p.
7, ibid;   "Mrs. Dugan complained of her attending  physician, Dr.
Adreon, saying he had opened her bowels, which was the  fact.  Dr.
Adreon  left Mrs. Dugan after  the operation and did not return for
two or  three days"—page 11, ibid ;  "Mrs. Dugan became very  ill
(during this abandonment) sent for  her minister, and told  him to
send for his  physician,  Dr. White, which he  did promptly.   Drs.
White and Knox  came and  took charge of the case"—p. 12, ibid.
" I have personal  knowlege of the truth of their statements," (Thos.
and Ann Cox's)—page 13, ibid.
  " Mrs. Reinhimer states, in  presence of her husband, that all  the
above statements, asserting that she knew personally anything about
the Dugan case, are false.  All she knows about the case she derived
from old women;  she did not know one physician from another, and
has no personal knowledge of what occurred.
                              "J.  E. REINHIMER,
   July, '47.                   " MARY ANN REINHIMER."
  The  foregoing statements  afford   additional  proof  not  only  of
White's infamous  frauds, but  also of  the correctness of my own rep-
resentations of the Dugan case.   On page 552, May number, 1846,
St. Louis Medical and Surgical  Journal, I am represented as stating
that " the tumor"  !!! which has created all the disputes in this case,
was discovered by Mrs. Dugan's neighbors before my operation  on
it, and to put down scandalous reports against the patient I exam-
ined it.   To prevent further quotation, I would  refer my readers to
the page above named.  Mr. and Mrs. Myer's statement, refers to
these  reports of the patient's  suspected character, and confirm my
representations  of that  period.   If the tumor were  clearly hernia,
and as "large as a tea-cup"—if  there were neighbors familiar with
that disease, and could then,  as now,  pronounce it such,  how did it
occur that scandalous reports  against the character of the patient
grew out of  the tumor?   The very circumstances of the  case forbid
the belief that any of  these neighbors examined it with a  knowledge
of its real character—yet White would have his readers believe that
those who then suspected her case was venereal, can now attest its
minutest symptoms, and assert it was hernia. 
45
  I need not remark on the indecency of bringing the names of re-
spectable females before the public, in connection with such circum-
stances.  It  is painful to any  one of proper feelings to see them
wantonly dragged in  as  witnesses, where it must be mortifying to
them to acknowledge they  can know any  thing of the  case.   On
White  must be  charged this indecency, for  he first cited these
females as his witnssses, to asperse those he assailed.
  To prevent any prejudice being engendered, or advantage taken
of unexplained  expressions  in  my previous  pages, I  will  here
remark, that when I speak of the degraded character of  witnesses,
I intend solely to reflect on Mrs. Dugan  and her immediate  asso-
ciates,  whose intelligence and repute may be judged from  her neigh-
bors' statements.
  No unkind remarks, or reflections of any kind, in this controversy,
are intended to apply to Mrs. Burke, or  Mrs. McCourtney, or  Mrs.
Polly Sly ; the two last named  I do not know.  Their represented
assertions are quoted but once  or twice  in White's  pamphlet, and
from this circumstance I thought it unnecessary to  notice the testi-
mony.  This explanation I deem proper in justice to  all parties, and
to  prevent  prejudice.  Dr. Reyburn has been  foully  belied and
berated by White, for saying some of his witnesses were " sought
from the  lowest haunts of  degradation," which expression could
only have been intended to apply to the immediate Dugan party.
   No  unkind expressions used in this or any other publication on
the subject, are intended to reflect on those whose charity alone led
them to visit the  patient in  1840.   Mrs. Waddingham was one  of
those—to whose judicious aid I bear witness, and to  whose humane
attention the patient was indebted.
   In regard to  the  Myer family, I  have been led into  prejudiced
views, by White's false  representations, and now retract any remarks
which may reflect on them  in the previous  pages.  In my visit to
Mr. Myer and Mr. Reinhimer, I was convinced  I had  done  them
injustice in my remarks, then in press—and now state, that so far as
1 could judge from our interview, these  parties seemed  desirous of
doing  justice by their statements—and appeared to be intelligent and
honest Germans.  Mr.  Myer's  statement shows what justifiable rea-
sons he had for wishing  Mary Dugan to leave his house.
   In regard to  the  nature  of  M. Dugan's disease, I would remark,
that I will not at the end of seven  years from its occurrence inter-
change contradictions with  White about it.  If discrepancy exists
upon=>trivial points connected with it—such is natural—lapse of time
would  produce it.   Nor will I discuss whether parties  not physi-
cians,  could in the first instance note, and at the end of seven years,
accurately recall  to mind its  minute diagnostic signs and  symptoms.
Whether  Mrs. Dugan  then gave to  casual  visitors, a  statement
which would identify her disease with hernia, or whether these par-
ties could even  distinguish hernia or perforative ulceration of the
bow-els, would be absurd to remark upon.   I was not present when
any other statement of  her  case  was given by her, than the one I 
46
have  published—nor were any of those  persons quoted  by White
against my representations of the case,  present, when  I  learned its
history and symptoms.   The whole dispute starts from the reputed
assertions of a suspected prostitute—the false affidavit of a degraded
spectatress in pecuniary damages against those whose charity min-
istered to her wants.
  The tone of Dr. Sykes'  paper, and the position claimed  by him
in this case are shown in the subjoined extracts from his publication,
to which I  have already referred ;
              "TO  THOMAS J.  WHITE, M.D.
  "Sir—If your moral courage equalled  the envious and malignant
passions of your heart, I should have been spared the necessity of
addressing you.  I deeply  regret  you  have imposed this necessity
upon  me, but an  abiding  sense of what I owe to the profession of
Surgery, independent of a stern sense of  duty to myself,  leaves me
no alternative.  These  remarks are made in reference to the case of
Mary Dugan, which has recently  been made the  subject of legal
proceedings in one of our courts of justice.
  " That case has been recorded  in a medical journal of this city,
and you have answered it; and,  although  you (as I am  informed)
have repeatedly stated that my name was not  referred to, I should
have had infinitely more respect for you  had you come out boldly,
and attacked my opinions, (which you had a perfect right to do,) than
by covert insinuation and mean inuendo,  attacked me sub rosa.   It
is in vain, sir, for you to plead ignorance of  my full participation in
that case; you were aware of it at the  time;  you have  been fully
cognizant of it since that period.
  " I  have  never disguised my opinions, but gave  them fully, fear-
lessly and openly ; and if,  in this paper, you should find  things not
very palatable, you will place them to your own account.
             "'Let the galled jade wince, my withers are unwruiig:' "
    *          *         *          #         #          *
  " What, then, has been my astonishment to find  myself—the Sur-
geon  who had the  principal share in Mary Dugan's case^ and whose
testimony was given in a court of  justice, under the solemn sanctity
of an oath—attacked, as I have been, by you."
    *          *         *          #         *          *
  "I  am not  one of those  who impute to you the belief, that when
my testimony came before the court and jury, 1 could be induced by
any animosity I had to Dr. Beaumont, to  give the slightest coloring
to his having erred.   But  there  were a set of miserable curs in
the profession, who would  have been delighted  to have me do so.
1  Qui caput, tile facit? I shall not  be  absent; ready to answer to
them, when, and where they please."
  To show the successive  features of the  disease,  and prove that
others' representations thereon substantially coincide with  my own, I
would refer readers to the published  report of the evidence of those
physicians  who  saw the case with me, and to the following state-
ment  by  Dr. Sykes, which illustrates the care taken to  decide the 
47
exact nature of the disease.   Dr. Sykes' visits to the  case  were in
April, not June, as mis-stated in his publication, and  his examination
was made a few days  before my operation, when the  nature of the
tumor could with greatest certainty be distinguished.
   " I now proceed to give the facts, as they presented  themselves to
me early in June, 184U.  On my first visit I found the  patient feeble,
and exceedingly prostrate.  From what I could learn, I supposed
she had an  attack of ileus the day before.   She  was,  however,  bet-
ter than on  the day previous, from the combined action of  calomel,
opium, croton oil, and  turpentine.   1  inquired  minutely  into her
symptoms;  and suspecting  she might possibly have hernia, drew
her attention particularly to this subject.   Her answer was,  emphat-
ically, she never had such symptoms or such appearance.   Not sat-
isfied with this, I made a  personal examination  of the  inguinal
region, commencing at  the internal  and tracing the canal up to the
external ring.   I  found no hernia  here.   I now examined below
Poupart's ligament, and  especially  the  crescentic edge  of  the facia
lata;  where femoral  hernia (a  disease  almost peculiar  to  females)
usually comes out with the vessels to the thigh. I found  no her-
nia there.
   " But now comes all the difficulty, and  what has given rise to all
the trouble.  There was a small inguinal gland, just under  the edge
of Poupart's ligament, in a state of  inflammation, and rapidly tend-
ing to suppuration, about the size of  a nutmeg, near  the anterior and
inferior spine of the ileum.  I  did not  see the patient for two days
after this.   In  the meantime, Dr. Adreon had  evacuated the matter
by opening  it  with a  lancet.   It was considered of so little import-
ance that  no further attention was paid to it.   It  rapidly got well.
   " On my  next visit the woman was suffering under an attack sim-
ilar to the first, and I  believed  she would die.  She complained of
great and  excruciating pain in the abdominal  region,  but especially
in the right side.  The right inguen had  become inflamed ; small
vesicles appeared on its surface, the sure fore-runner of mortification.
She was put on the use  of quinine,  and the most nourishing diet,
with bark, charcoal, and yeast poultices to  the  part; and, on my
visit the next morning, upon removing the poultice myself  I feund
that ulceration  had  made its way through the walls of  the abdomen,
midway between the external abdominal ring and the pubis.
   "  The case was solved.  The intestine had ulcerated from some
unknown  cause; had made its  way through the common integu-
ments, and was discharging green bilious matter.  I  do aver that
a cutting instrument never touched her,  with the exception of open-
ing the small gland  referred to, and Dr. Beaumont's cutting off small
portions of mortified skin and cellular substance, to give the parts  a
better chance of being  restored  to healthy action.  My impression
was, that this perforation  would last/or life."
   Dr. Carpenter testified he was convinced by the patient's statement,
in  1840, that she had  not  hernia.   Drs. Beaumont, Reyburn, and
Brown confirm  this opinion. 
48
   I  have extended  these remarks  far beyond  the  limits originally
 intended, and must now close them.
   I  have waded through the foul  current of my reckless libeller's
 charges, and turned the stream back upon him.   It will be unneces-
 sary for me to sum  up my charges and the evidence against him.
 On  every page of  his pamphlet is  palpable falsehood proven to
 exist.   A false and specious plea is all  he could  put forth, and best
 suited his malignant nature.  I have exposed the degraded  artifices
 by which he attempts to asperse those against whom he is so bitterly
 incensed ;—I  now leave him to his infamy, and quit a controversy
 disgusting from the nature of its  subject, and  rendered  even  more
 so by the  tone and conduct of my envenomed adversary.  Shut out
 of view all that has been written of  him, and he  stands the same as
 this  controversy  exhibits.   His  conduct  has stamped him   with
 infamy, and he stands in the profession as an  Ishmael, whose hand is
against every man.   He sliows himself by his publications  to  be an
 unprincipled falsifier—the reckless calumniator of others—an empty,
vaporing brawler, and with this expression of opinion, I leave him
to enjoy all he has gained in his onslaught—fully assured there will
 be little difference in  the estimate of his merits. 
 
}
\
V
)