In the Circuit Court of the United States at Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, April Term, 189^. 
W. R. AMICK, Plaintiff, 
vs. 
JAMES E. REEVES, Defendant. 
ACTION FOR LIBFL. 
Pleadings in the Cause. 
Arguments of Counsel. 
Charge of the Court. 
Reported by MISS JULIA AKERS, Stenographer. 
Deardorff Paper & Mfq. Co. 
Chattanooga, Tenn IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DIVISION OF THE EAST- 
ERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. 
W. R. A MICK 
vs. 
JAMES E. REE VES. 
page he gives the following racy morsel: 
‘The wise doctor knows a good thing 
when he sees it, therefore we need not 
urge him to be early in the field with this 
new treatment.’ The same publication 
tells further that The Amick Chemical 
Company—a brace of congenial spirits in 
affectionate embrace—is an incorporated 
concern with a paid up capital stock of 
$300,000. Is that the way for scientific 
inquiry? Is that the way of a reputable 
physician in discharging his duty to 
society and obligation to the profession 
which gave him honor and standing 
among men? 
“From first to last of his forty-page 
pamphlet, sent out to catch the pockets 
and last hopes of' the sick and dying, 
there are not to be found a half dozen 
cases of undeniable tubercvdar consump- 
tion. The testimonials are cunningly 
stated, but when read by the intelligent 
physician they are meaningless and 
therefore utterly worthless in the dis- 
covery of medical truth. 
“If Dr. Amick had been moved by a 
spirit of true scientific inquiry he could 
have found in the city of Cincinnati 
ample opportunities for convincing the 
whole world of the value of his ‘chemical 
treatment.’ There, at his own home, he 
could have had in the great Cincinnati 
Hospital sufficient clinical material to 
prove the truth of his assumption, and an 
audience of the great men of that city to 
either indorse or condemn his claims. 
Instead, he has appealed to a far lower 
court of inquiry—to the secular news- 
paper press, and based his claims of a 
wonderful medical discovery upon 
“drowning men catching at straws,” and 
the certificate of fifth-rate doctors through- 
out the country—all for the purpose of 
money getting. Is it not surprising that 
he should have to come to Chattanooga 
to obtain his best indorsement—the testi- 
monials of Drs. Holland and Hunt, with 
McReynolds thrown in for good measure? 
The plaintiff, who is a citizen and 
resident of the State of Ohio, sues the 
defendant, who is a citizen and resident 
of the Eastern District of the State of 
Tennessee, for twenty-five thousand dol- 
lars damages, for that, whereas, hereto- 
fore, to-wit: the second day of August, 
1893, the said defendant falselj' and ma- 
liciously wrote and published in the 
Chattanooga Daily Times, a newspaper 
published at Chattanooga, Tennessee, the 
following libelous matter and words of 
and concerning the plaintiff and in rela- 
tion to his profession, which is that of a 
physician, in which profession he is in 
good and regular standing, viz : 
“Chattanooga, August 2nd, 1893. 
“To the Chattanooga Times. 
“The open court which you have es- 
tablished in the Times is most opportune, 
for there is pressing necessity that the 
light shall be turned on in full force to 
show up the truth concerning Dr. 
Amick’s so-called cure [plaintiff being 
the person referred to as Dr. Amick] for 
consumption, which has so strangely 
won your persona,! attention. 
“We have before us a medical question 
—an issue in which your indorsement is 
wholly worthless; for the reason that you 
are a newspaper, not a learned physician 
capable of striking the difference between 
the methods of medical quackery and the 
necessary painstaking labors in formulat- 
ing medical truth. 
“The methods employed by Dr. Amick 
are plainly those of the most brazen faced 
quacks. In proof see his forty-page 
pamphlet, setting forth the virtues of his 
‘chemical treatment.’ On an initial 
DECT Alt A TION. 4 
DEC LARA TION. 
“But you have said the use of the City 
Board of Health’s name was “a mere 
technicality.” Like John Brown’s body', 
and old man Council’s certificate though 
he has been dead for three years, of the 
curative virtues of a Texas fraud for con- 
sumption, the certificates of Hunt and 
Holland will keep marching on, though 
every' one of the illustrious “eleven test 
cases” shall have proved fatal. 
“Dr. Amick gives his treatment free for 
the first ten days, after that the price is 
$10 per box of medicines. Is this the way 
Dr. Jenner gave his blessing to the world 
when he discovered vaccinatiop as a pre- 
ventive of smallpox? Did he rob the 
sick by false promises? [Meaning that 
plaintiff had robbed the sick by' false 
promises.] Did he pay' for newspaper 
puffs of his discovery' to secure patronage? 
Nayq verily. He challenged the most 
searching examination of the truth of his 
statements by men capable of judging his 
claims. 
“With but three or four exceptions, all 
the testimonials in Dr. Amick’s pamphlet 
say the cases were consumption, because 
cough, expectoration, hemorrhage in 
some cases, night sweats, loss of appetite, 
and wasting of flesh and strength were the 
sy'mptoms, “merely' this and nothing 
more.” 
“Every' intelligent physician knows that 
something else is required to prove be- 
y'ond a doubt that the case is one of 
tubercular consumption. And this is the 
answer to the assertion that George 
Golston and Mrs. John H. Springfield 
were cured of tubercular consumption by' 
the use of “Dr. Amick’s chemical treat- 
ment.” The free treatment for ten days 
is to decoy' the trusting patient to have 
him or her make subsequent remittances 
of $10,—the oftener repeated the better 
for Amick. 
“When Dr. VanderVeer, of Albany', N. 
Y., asked me the other day if “any really' 
strong man in the profession in Chatta- 
nooga had given this treatment indorse- 
ment,” I went to Dr. Holland, President 
of the City Board of Health, for an an- 
swer. He frankly admitted, in the pres- 
ence of Dr. Stapp, that a bacteriological 
examination of the cases had not been 
made. 1 then offered to go with him to 
see the patients and make a careful 
microscopical examination of the sputum 
in each case, and give him the micro- 
scopical slides—all free of charge, but he 
thought this care “not worth while.” 
“I replied, ‘your experiments will be 
worthless unless you can give the micro- 
scopical proof—the presence of the spe- 
cific bacilli—that the cases you have 
under treatment are tuberculous.’ 
“Not to mince words, Drs. Hunt and 
Holland make no pretense of micro- 
scopical technique, neither have they 
called to their aid a competent bacteriol- 
ogist in their studies of the cases you 
have given through your columns as won- 
derful cures; therefore, their testimony is 
worthless. And would you, if you were 
charged with a scientific inquiry, select 
men who are not familiar with the de- 
mands of science in the search for truth? 
“Drs. Sims and Wise have a genuine 
case of tubercular consumption under ob- 
servation, in which the poor sufferer, on 
his own responsibility', is following Dr. 
Amick’s advice to the very' letter. 
“About six weeks ago this patient came 
to my office to have me examine his ex- 
pectoration, to see if he had consumption 
or not. 
“His sputum was loaded with tubercle 
bacilli, and I advised him to go as quickly' 
as possible to Walden’s Ridge, where so 
many consumptives have been benefitted 
by the good climate and pure water. 
After his visit to mv house, Dr. Amick 
caught him, and advised him to stay at 
home in Chattanooga. [Meaning there- 
by' that plaintiff, who was referred to, 
had been guilty of unprofessional conduct 
and malpractice in his profession for the 
puipose of making money' from the patient 
referred to.] Last evening I visited him 
with Dr. Wise. His expectoration is 
swarming with luxuriant tubercle bacilli, 
while everv symptom is much worse than 
when I saw him six weeks ago, notwith- 
standing his sixteen days’ faithful trial 
with the wonderful cure for consumption. 
“The good name of the Chattanooga 
Times requires that the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, shall go 
out to its thousands of readers, regardless 
of advertising patronage. 
“Through its order a “ten day's” supply' 
of the Amick plan of treatment has been 
delivered to me for fair trial, and I intend 
to make use of it on the first case I find 
willing to accept the plan. I here give 
notice that when I begin the test case 1 
shall summon several of our ablest physi- 
cians to observe with me the result. 
Every particular shall be recorded, and I DECLARA TION. 
5 
will be careful to select a patient that is 
not at death’s door. 
JAMES E. REEVES.” 
Plaintiff is, as aforesaid, a physician in 
good and regular standing, and was at the 
time of the said publication extensively 
engaged in the practice of his profession 
in many parts of the United States, 
among them Chattanooga, Tennessee, and 
vicinity. 
He has acquired especial repute in the 
treatment of consumption, in which said 
treatment he uses and employs certain 
chemical combinations of great value and 
efficiency, known as the Chemical Treat- 
ment. Defendant is likewise a physician, 
engaged in the practice of his profession 
at Chattanooga, Tennessee. 11 is intent, 
purpose and object in writing and pub- 
lishing the said false and malicious com- 
munication was to advertise falsely to the 
public that plaintiff is a quack and an im- 
poster and bis said Chemical Treatment 
a worthless nostrum, and to thus greatly 
damage and injure the plaintiff in his 
person, property, profession and reputa- 
tion. 
By the said publication, so falsely and 
maliciously made by defendant plaintiff 
was and is greatly injured and damaged 
in his profession and reputation, and lias 
been prevented from acquiring divers 
great gains which he might and would 
otherwise have acquired, and has been 
made to suffer and does suffer great men- 
tal pain and anguish, all to his damage 
twenty-five thousand dollars as aforesaid, 
for which he sues and demands a jury to 
try the issues, etc. 
Second Count.—And the plaintiff 
sues the defendant, now in court, for 
other twenty-five thousand dollars, for 
that, whereas, heretofore, to-wit, the 
day of August, 1893, the said defendant, 
falsely and maliciously wrote and pub- 
lished of and concerning the plaintiff ami 
in relation to his profession, which is 
that of a physician, in which profession 
he was then and is now in good and reg- 
ular standing, by delivering to the Press, 
a newspaper published in Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, the following false and libel- 
ous matter and words, to-wit: 
“If Dr, Amick were on trial for his 
life, I’ve got evidence enough to bang 
him. In all my experience 1 have never 
encountered such a bare-faced fraud as 
tfeis. 
“If 1 were to go to a newspaper pro- 
prietor and ask him to combine with me 
to rob a bank, lie would denounce me for 
it; but would not that be more honorable 
than a conspiracy, for pecuniary benefit, 
to rob the sick and dying men and women 
of the community? 
“Take the cases in and around Chatta- 
nooga, who have taken the cure, and we 
find those who had consumption have 
died or will die soon, while one or two 
who never had tuberculosis at all are get- 
ting better. The pretended cure is a big 
humbug, a bare-faced fraud, and ought to 
be denounced without fear. The physi- 
cians who have ... . . me give the 
plain lie to Dr. Amick’s claim that they 
endorsed him, and they are among the 
most eminent members of the profession 
in the country.” 
Prior to the publication of the said 
libelous and malicious matter and words 
plaintiff had discovered certain chemical 
combinations ami actions of great value 
and efficiency in the treatment of persons 
afflicted with consumption, and had been 
heretofore and was then using the said 
chemical combinations and actions which 
were then known as Amick’s Chemical 
Treatment in the treatment of persons 
afflicted with consumption, in his practice 
as a phj sician in many and divers places 
in the United States, among- them Chat- 
tanooga, Tennessee, and vicinity. 
The defendant was at the time of the 
said publication, likewise a physician, 
practicing his profession at Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, and the intent, meaning and 
object of the said publication ivas to ad- 
vertise and state falsely to the public that 
plaintiff was a quack (meaning a boastful 
pretender to medical skill, an ignorant 
practitioner of medicine), a humbug and 
impostor, and that his said chemical com- 
binations for the treatment of consump- 
tion, known as the Chemical Treatment, 
was a mere worthless fraud, and thus to 
greatly damage and injure him in his 
profession and reputation, his person and 
property. 
And plaintiff avers that by reason of 
the said false, malicious and libelous pub- 
lication he was and is greatly damaged 
and injured in his profession and reputa- 
tion, and greatly damaged by having his 
said chemical combinations, known as the 
Chemical Treatment as aforesaid, brought 
into disrepute in the estimation of divers 
persons and its reputation thereby greatly 
injured, so that he has been prevented 
from acquiring divers great gains which 
he might and would otherwise have ac- 6 
quired, and has been made to suffer great 
mental pain and anguish, all to his dam- 
age twenty-five thousand dollars as 
aforesaid, for which he sues and demands 
a jury to try the issues, etc. 
W. R. AMICK. 
By H. M. Wiltse, 
Attorney. 
H. M. WILTSE, Attorney. 
DEFENDANT'S PLEAS. 
any person desiring the same, to be used 
as and for a test of the efficacy of his al- 
leged remedy, and that after the expira- 
tion of said period said treatment would 
be furnished at a certain stipulated 
price. 
And said plaintiff, by the claims made 
for his said treatment in the publications 
and advertisements aforesaid, and by 
reason of the alleged cure of certain div- 
ers and numerous alleged cases of 
consumption by the use of his said treat- 
ment, and also because of the alleged ad- 
vantageous offers contained therein as 
aforesaid, was strongly appealing for 
public patronage in the use of his alleged 
new and successful treatment for the Cure 
of Consumption, and by reason thereof 
public interest in the said city of Chatta- 
nooga and in different parts of the coun- 
try became, and was so great in respect 
to the claims of said plaintiff for his said 
treatment, that the said “Chattanooga 
Daily Times” established in said paper 
what it termed “An Open Court” for the 
free discussion of the alleged merits or 
demerits of said alleged cure, and all 
persons interested in the subject, and es- 
pecially the members of the medical 
profession, were invited to freely discuss 
and express their views and opinions re- 
specting the claims made by the plaintiff 
in relation to his new and wonderful 
treatment for the cure of consumption. 
The defendant at said time, and for sev- 
eral years prior thereto, had been a prac- 
ticing physician in the said city of Chat- 
tanooga in good and regular standing, 
and in addition thereto defendant had 
been engaged in the active pursuit and 
practice of his profession for more than 
forty years, during the last seventeen 
years of which he has made Microscopy 
a particular study, and by reason thereof 
he is now and was at the date of the pub 
lication complained of specially iitted 
by education and experience for the 
proper diagnosis and treatment of tuber- 
cular consumption. And by reason of 
the facts aforesaid defendant composed 
and published the communication set 
out in said first court of the declaration. 
And defendant says that said publication 
did not bear or convey the defamatory 
meaning alleged therein, and was made 
in good faith, under a sense of profes- 
sional aud public duty and in a sincere 
spirit of scientific inquiry,without malice, 
and the same was in relation to and a 
fair and candid comment on a matter 
DEFENDANT'S PLEAS. 
First Plea.—The defendant for plea 
to each and every count in plaintiff’s 
declaration contained says that he is not 
guilty in manner and form as alleged 
therein. 
Second Plea.—And for further plea 
defendant says that the publication de- 
clared on in each and every count of 
the declaration which is here referred to 
as if fully set out herein taken in its or- 
dinary meaning, sense, acceptation and 
effect, is true in substance and in fact, 
and this the defendant is ready to verify. 
Third Plea.—And for further plea de- 
fendant says that the publication declared 
on in each and every count of the declar- 
ation, taken in its ordinary sense, and as 
ordinarity understood and accepted and 
imputed to the plaintiff, was true in 
substance and in fact, and was believed 
to be so and published in good faith and 
without malice, and this the defendant is 
ready to verify. 
Fourth Plea.—And for further plea to 
the first count of the declaration defend- 
ant says actio non: Because the plain- 
tiff, at the time of the composing and 
publishing of the article or language de- 
clared on was, and for some time prior 
thereto, had been a physician in the city 
of Cincinnati in the state of Ohio, and on 
said date, and for a long time prior 
thereto, was and had been among other 
things advertising and publishing and 
causing to be advertised and published to 
the world through certain printed pam- 
phlets and newspapers in the United 
States, and especially in the “Chatta- 
nooga Daily Times” referred to in the 
declaration that he, the said plaintiff, 
had recently discovered a new and most 
wonderful “Chemical Treatment” for 
the cure of consumption, and as one of 
the inducements for the use and adoption 
of his alleged cure, said plaintiff offered 
the rein to furnish his said treatment free 
of charge for the period of ten days, to REPLICATION, ETC. 
7 
then of great public interest and con- 
cern to the inhabitants of the said city of 
Chattanooga as well as throughout the 
entire country, to-wit: Whether the 
claims made by said plaintiff for his al- 
leged new and wonderful treatment for 
the cure of consumption, as aforesaid, 
were in fact true or false. 
Wherefore defendant says that by rea- 
son of the facts aforesaid said publica- 
tion was privileged, and this the defend- 
ant is ready to verify. 
DANIELS & GARVIN, 
Attorneys for Defendant. 
candid comment upon the matter to 
which it related, and was not privileged. 
And a<ll of this the plaintiff prays may 
be inquired into by the country, 
H. M. WILTSE, Attorney. 
DEFENDANT'S REJOINDER. 
The defendant joins issue on the sec- 
ond, third and fourth paragraphs of 
plaintiff’s replication in the above cause. 
DANIELS & GARVIN, 
Attorneys for Defendant. 
REPLICA TION. 
OPENING ARGUMENT. 
The replication of plaintiff to all and 
each of the defendant’s several pleas. 
The plaintiff, by way of replication to 
defendant’s first plea, says he joins issue 
thereon. 
And the plaintiff, by 'way of replica- 
tion to defendant’s second plea, says the 
publications declared upon in the several 
counts of his declaration are not, taken 
in their oidinary sense, meaning, ac- 
ceptation and effect, true in substance or 
in fact. 
And the plaintiff, by way of replication 
to defendant’s third plea, says the publi- 
cations declared upon in the several 
counts of his declaration are not, taken 
in their ordinary sense and as ordinarily 
understood and accepted and imputed to 
him true in substance or in fact, and 
were not believed to be so as published 
in good faith and without malice, as in 
the said plea alleged, but were published 
with the intent and meaning stated in 
the several counts of the declaration, and 
maliciously as stated, for the purposes 
stated. 
And the plaintiff, by way of replica- 
tion to the defendant’s fourth plea, says 
he is entitled to maintain his action as in 
his declaration alleged and for the rea- 
sons alleged, and that the publications 
declared upon in the several counts of his 
declaration, and especially the first count 
thereof, did bear and convey the defama- 
tory meaning alleged therein, and were 
not made in good faith, under a sense of 
professional and public duty and were 
not made in a sincere spirit of scientific 
inquiry, without malice, as in said plea 
alleged, and that the matter contained in 
said publication set out in the first count 
of his said declaration was not a fair and 
H. M. WILTSE, ESC^ 
If your Honor please, and gentlemen, 
I presume that my friends, the enemy, 
feel as if they had pretty badly demol- 
ished a certain branch of this case with 
their expert testimony; but I feel, on the 
contrary, as if they have simply devel- 
oped the true inwardness of the publica- 
tion which is complained of, or the pub- 
lications. Now, Dr. Reeves is a friend 
of mine, and an esteemed friend, and, of 
course, I shall have nothing whatever to 
say which will, by ajiy possible construc- 
tion, have an unkind tendency; but in 
this matter his conduct is something that 
I shall be obliged to refer to very plainly. 
I believe he was actuated, not only by a 
degree of personal malice, perhaps an 
almost unconscious personal malice, but 
that he was actuated, also, by a species 
of malice which characterizes a very 
large per cent, of the medical profession, 
when a question of medical ethics is at 
stake. You heard frequent references 
made, in reading the depositions, to cer- 
tain Medical Associations. It is known 
to the world to be a fact that these codes 
of these medical associations, their rules 
of conduct, are the Bible of the profes- 
sion; or if Bible of the profession is mak- 
ing it too strong, then the Koran of the 
profession; I believe that would suit my 
purpose better, for I don’t admit that 
they are entitled to be compared, their 
codes, to the foundation of our religion. 
As has been shown, the Amick Chem- 
ical Company offered every opportunity 
to the people of this vicinity to investi- 
gate their treatment, investigate their 
methods, investigate their conduct. They 
did everything they ought to have been 8 
OPENING ARGUMENT. 
expected to do, and they did some things 
which they ought not to have been ex- 
pected to do, and which I think they 
acted unwisely in doing. One thing was, 
to allow Dr. Reeves to wheedle them or 
bulldoze them into (his series of test 
cases, about which they have made so 
much hullaballoo. I think they have 
acted very unwisely in doing that. I 
think the belter plan for them would 
have been to go along with the doctors 
that had been handling their treatment 
and do the best they could, and once in a 
while save a poor suffering mortal from 
death, perhaps arrest the disease, and 
once in a while prolong a life if they 
could, and if they occasionally lost a 
case, if they lost ninety out of every 
hundred, if ten out of a hundred were 
saved or benefitted, I think that the 
treatment ought to be lauded, not only 
by the medical profession, but by the 
community al large. 
Think of the testimony of those people 
in Cincinnati, (whose names 1 do not re- 
member, and it does not make any differ- 
ence). Think of the testimony in regard 
to that man who said that he had to go 
to bed and could not work and was in bed 
for months, was spitting blood, consid- 
ered himself almost like a dead man, and 
heard people remarking upon his condi- 
tion, “Poor fellow, he hasn’t got long to 
stay here;” and he went under that treat- 
ment; and then he said that in a certain 
number of months he was able to walk 
up to the top of Mount Adams, a steep 
incline, just as rapidly as anybody, and 
felt just as little ill effect as the soundest 
man would feel from the exercise. Then 
there was the case of that young lady, 
and three or four or five cases in which 
it is shown that this treatment has been 
beneficial, has been most wonderfully 
efficient. Now they come along with a 
lot of doctors who are essentially enemies 
of this treatment. Why every new dis- 
covery in the medical profession is de- 
nounced; every one. I do not suppose 
that my learned friend, Dr. Reeves, can 
mention a solitary great discovery in 
medicine or surgery but that has been 
made the text for the denunciation of the 
discoverer all over the world, wherever 
it was heard of. Why, he talked to them 
about Jenner. I think in his letter he 
refers to Jenner, who is supposed to have 
discovered the secret of vaccination as a 
preventive of small pox. It is known to 
the whole world that Jenner was almost 
crucified because, they said, he was too 
hold. A mail who would make such a 
profession to the world was a lunatic, 
and, of course, a quack. When Harvey 
discovered the circulation of the blood, 
Harvey became a quack in less time than 
it takes the blood to circulate once. 
Harvey said “it does circulate,” and he 
was denouncecLall over the world. And 
Dr. Koch was denounced all over the 
world when he claimed that he had dis- 
covered a remedy for consumption, a pos- 
sible cure for consumption. And so it is 
all the way around. Every doctor who 
ventures a little in advance of his profes- 
sion gets in front of an armed mob, al- 
most, and they lire at him, and they per- 
secute him, and they drive him out of the 
profession if they can, and they try to 
drive his remedy out of the profession. 
I do not see fit to ascribe to them any 
mercenary motives, but that will appear 
upon the face of the record. Of course, 
if a man discovers a remedy that is unu- 
sual, that the other doctors are not in 
possession of, he interferes with their 
business; he treads on their toes and 
they, very naturally, squeal, and they 
squealed here yesterday; and I was not 
at all surprised at the squeal; I expected 
it, I expected to hear it. All of them 
estimable men; two of them men who 
had dumped into this test business the 
patients who were dying upon their 
hands, and got a few doses of this medi- 
cine down them, fortunately for them, 
before they expired, and then the doctors 
threw up their hands in holy horror, 
“Look at what that Amick has done; he 
has killed my patient.” They got rid of 
the responsibility themselves. I think 
they proved that two or three of those 
people who were in that test died; tried 
to prove that they all died, but they 
didn’t do so by a very large majority; 
they let several escape. And I hope that 
they are not sorry that some of them 
lived; I am not; I am very glad. But if 
all of them had died, it would have been 
no warrant for the publication of this 
article; and that this article was published 
before that test was made, and that test 
and the results of it are lugged in here 
with very little grace, because, before this 
test was made, he had by this article de- 
nounced this man as a quack, a brazen 
faced quack, an imposter and a fraud, 
and then he himself becomes one of his 
patrons, and used the remedy and on the 
men whom he had himself selected. ARGUMENT OF YV. B. GARVIN, ESQ. 
9 
Now you can see that malice was in his 
heart at the very time when he made 
these selections. I think that ha was 
heard to say, and I think he will ac- 
knowledge that he did say, that one has 
to have the “bugs” in him before he has 
consumption; and he is one of the most 
remarkable discoverers of “bugs” in the 
world. He takes a great deal of delight 
in discovering “bugs” with his micro- 
scope, and I believe that he has done a 
good deal of valuable service to the world, 
but 1 believe that, after all, a man may 
venture to disagree with Dr. Reeves and 
not be a fool. Dr. Reeves says: Dr. 
Amick's “methods are plainly those of 
the most brazen faced quacks; for the 
proof see his, the plaintiff’s, forty-page 
pamphlet.” 
The fact is, that that of itself, with- 
out anything else, would be libelous. To 
call a doctor a quack is precisely the 
same thing, or worse than to call a law- 
yer a shyster, a preacher a hypocrite, or 
a tradesman a fraud. It necessarily im- 
plies that that man is not only an ignor- 
ant fellow, but an ignorant pretender, 
and there is no proof in this record that 
Dr. Amick is by any means an ignorant 
man. The proof is that he is a very 
learned man and has occupied, during 
the past twenty years, positions of emi- 
nence in his profession, positions of emi- 
nence in various colleges of medicine. 
And now it occurs to me that because 
Dr. Amick has stepped a little bit in ad- 
vance of his profession, has discovered 
something which he believes to be a ben- 
efit to mankind, that he ought not to be 
subjected to this sort of fire from his pro- 
fessional brethren, and I believe that the 
juries of the country ought to see that 
men who undertake to benefit mankind 
are protected from that sort of thing. 
Now, they say that he kept that a se- 
cret, and that makes him a quack. But 
you must remember that Dr. Koch kept 
his remedy a secret, and he said he did it 
for the purpose of experimenting, wanted 
to perfect it before making it known to 
the world. He had a right to do that. 
Here is Dr. Keely, who discovered the 
gold treatment for the liquor habit; he 
has been hauled up and traduced and 
vilified by the members of his profession 
ever since he began. He does not pre- 
tend to visit every patient that he pre- 
scribes for, and he does not pretend to 
make his treatment public, and he doesn’t 
intend to do it, and the reason he don’t 
want to make it public is that he don’t 
want to have it handled by every fellow 
who comes along who would handle it 
carelessly, recklessly, and do more harm 
than good. Dr. Sequard discovered, a 
few years ago, what he called the Elixir 
of life. It was supposed to have been 
made public, and I expect more than fifty 
doctors right here in Chattanooga were 
stewing up guinea pigs, rabbits, etc., and 
squirting the juice into people as an ex- 
periment, and it didn’t prove very bene- 
ficial to the people who got the squirt 
gun into their arms and legs by any man- 
ner of means. That is sufficient reason 
why this great discovery should not be 
made public, and, furthermore, if a man 
wants to keep a thing of that sort secret 
he has a perfect right to do so. The laws 
of this country encourage a man who has 
discovered something in putting himself 
in a situation to derive the benefit from 
it. If we didn’t have any patent laws we 
wouldn’t have many inventors. The en- 
couragement that is given to discoverers, 
the protection which they get, the op- 
portunity for personal reward, is just 
what makes this country lead the world 
in discovery. 
Now, gentlemen, I prefer to reserve 
the balance of my time for the close. 
ARGUMENT Ob' W. Ji. GARVIN, ES%. 
May it please the Court and gentlemen 
of the jury: 
There are four pleas in this case. The 
first one is the plea of not guilty, or the 
general issue. This is especially appli- 
cable to the last count of this declaration. 
I will refer to that only sufficiently to 
say that there is no proof in this record 
that Dr. Reeves ever wrote the com- 
munication that was intended for the 
“Press.” He simply had a verbal inter- 
view \yith Mr. Warner, in which Mr. 
Warner took down Dr. Reeve’s words 
and did the writing himself. That writ- 
ing wa4 never published in the Press at 
all. Dr. Reeve’s words, if untrue, might 
be slander, but could not be libellous, as 
declared on. 
The fourth plea in this case is that the 
circumstances under which the letter 
complained of was written were such as 
to make it a privileged communication; 
that the plaintiff in this case had been 
advertising a medicine and appealing to 
public patronage through the newspapers 
and periodicals and by pamphlets, and 10 
ARGUMENT OF W. B. GARVIN, ESQ. 
had been calling the attention of the 
public to his medicine and claiming for 
it great curative virtues and value, and 
thereby that he challenged criticism and 
comment, and that Dr. Reeves had the 
right, as a doctor, to make whatever 
criticism and comment he thought was 
proper, provided he did it without malice 
and under circumstances that justified 
him. 
That plea I do not intend to discuss; 
but I want to take up simply the second 
plea, which is one of justification; and 
that is that the publication which Dr. 
Reeves made, taken in the ordinary 
sense, is true. I believe the evidence in 
this case will establish that fact. There 
is no dispute in this case, and Mr. Wiltse 
has not referred to any proof to the con- 
trary in his argument, but that the ad- 
vertisements which we have before us 
are the advertisements of Dr. Amick, or 
for which he is responsible. Dr. Amick 
claimed to have discovered a cure for 
consumption; organized a corporation 
with himself and three other men in it. 
They scattered broadcast all over the 
land pamphlets, and they subsidized the 
press. They caused advertisements to be 
placed in the press advertising that cure. 
He is responsible for that. These are 
the claims of Dr. Amick through the 
Amick Chemical Co. 
Let us see what these claims are. In 
the first place, gentlemen of the jury, the 
article which Dr. Reeves wrote is set out 
in full in the declaration, and this is the 
sum and substance of it, as the plaintiff 
himself claims: “His (defendant’s) in- 
tent and purpose and object in writing 
and publishing the said false and mali- 
cious communication was to advertise 
falsely to the public that plaintiff is a 
quack and his chemical treatment a 
worthless nostrum.” That is what they 
say the intent and purpose of that letter 
was. Let us see if that chemical treat- 
ment is not a worthless nostrum, and if 
Dr. Amick, in advertising the same, is 
not a quack. Nostrum means simply 
that the remedy is a secret remedy. 
That is all right. A man who has dis- 
covered a remedy has the legal right to 
keep it secret. We do not challenge 
that proposition at all. But if the remedy 
is worthless, we are justified in charac- 
terizing it as a worthless nostrum. What 
is a quack ? A quack is not necessarily 
an ignorant man; on the contrary, the 
more intelligent, the more dangerous he 
is We don’t claim that Amick is ignor- 
ant. We claim that he has advertised 
to do things which he cannot do. We 
claim he has advertised that he has 
done things which he has not done. We 
charge that if he has so advertised, then 
he is a quack. What does Dr. Amick 
advertise that he can do? Here is a 
pamphlet which he sends out. On its 
title page is the following: “Dr. Amick’s 
Chemical Treatment for Consumption, 
Asthma, Chronic Bronchitis, Hay Fever 
and all kindred diseases. Indorsed and 
adopted in practice by the medical pro- 
fession at large. The medicines for 
carrying out this marvelously successful 
treatment are prepared solely by the 
Amick Chemical Co. Thousands of 
successful tests made by the most com- 
petent physicians prove that this is by 
far the most effective treatment for these 
diseases ever known to the profession.” 
That is Dr. Amick appealing to the pub- 
lic. Now let us see what this pamphlet 
further says.- “The author knowing be- 
yond dispute that he has worked out an 
absolute cure for diseases heretofore ad- 
mitted to be incurable” (here is a claim 
that this Amick Chemical Cure is an 
absolute cure for consumption) “and 
profiting by the experience of others, has, 
in the interests of suffering humanity 
and for the benefit and protection of all 
conscientious physicians having an hon- 
est desire to heal the sick, placed his 
formulas in trust with this company.” 
Now let us see if that is Dr. Amick 
talking. Here is hfs article in this pam- 
phlet. I want tcv-read you a few sen- 
tences to show that it is put in his name: 
“In this article, I do not intend speaking 
of the history of consumption, or enter 
into any discussion of the various theo- 
ries that have been promulgated as to the 
cause of the disease.” Further on, “I have 
examined patients in the second stage of 
consumption with the characteristic and 
typical changes in respiration, etc.” “In 
order to have a proper conception of the 
theory which / present .” There it 
is, in great big head lines, “Dr. Amick’s 
Chemical Treatment.” 
Now, I haven’t time to read all of this 
pamphlet. I just want to read this part: 
“An examination of the statistics on file 
in other large cities does not show any 
unusual variations, which proves con- 
clusively that this wonderful decrease is 
due to some local cause or influence. If 
anyone doubts our claims that it is due ARGUMENT OF W. B. GARVIN, ESQ. 
11 
entirely to Dr. Amick’s Chemical Treat- 
ment for Consumption, the records on 
ffle in our office, together with the 
records of the Health Department, will 
promptly settle the question beyond dis- 
pute. 
“In the face of these convincing facts, 
we defy any person or body of persons to 
question for one moment the claims we 
make for this treatment, namely : That 
it is the first and only cure for consump- 
tion?' 
These are the claims of this man 
Amick. These are the claims that I am 
trying to get before you, gentlemen. If 
they are true, then find your verdict 
against Dr. Reeves. We do not say that 
Dr. Amick has not a legal right to ad- 
vertise. Let him advertise if he wants 
to, provided he advertises the truth. I 
want to say to you that he advertises that 
he has done and can do certain things, 
and I will undertake to prove that he 
has not done those things and cannot do 
them. 
Now then,gentlemen,the first claim that 
he sets up, and which I want to show you 
he cannot perform, is this: He has said 
in his deposition, and it is right here in 
this proof that he says he can treat con- 
sumption by correspondence. He wants 
to pick up unfortunate men all over this 
country, have them write to him for his 
medicines, and lie will undertake to cure 
their cases by correspondence. Didn’t 
he say that in his deposition? Didn’t 
he say that when the physician ordered 
the medicines, they sent the treatment 
through the physician, and if there was 
no physician “we send direct to the 
patient.” On this pamphlet is a list of 
questions for the patient to answer. The 
patient and Dr. Amick will cure this dis- 
ease by themselves. “Did your grand 
parents have lung trouble?” Going to 
have this patient pass on the question 
whether his parents had lung trouble, 
you see? “Have your uncles or aunts 
been afflicted with lung trouble? Have 
you had brothers or sisters with lung 
trouble? Have you had la grippe? 
Have you had hemorrhages, etc.? How 
is your appetite? Have you any stom- 
ach trouble?” If yop will answer all of 
these questions and send the question 
blank with the answers to Dr. Amick at 
Cincinnati, he will send you the secret 
of this wonderful cure, and he will cure 
you of consumption. Can he cure by 
correspondence? What is the evidence 
before you? You have to rely upon the 
evidence before you. What is it? Didn’t 
those doctors, whom you personally 
know to be men of skill, get on that 
stand and tell you that it is an impossi- 
bility? Then, isn’t it a fraud? Isn’t it 
quackery for a man to advertise through- 
out the country that he can cure con- 
sumption by correspondence? *That is 
the first thing. In the limited time,re- 
maining for the argument of this case I 
cannot stop to elaborate upon this. 1 
must make these points very briefly and 
pass on. But that is the first fraud. 
Now, what is the next? Dr. Amick 
and his Chemical Co. came down here 
and took this city by storm; took hold of 
the press and subsidized it. There was 
not a newspaper in this city that wasn’t 
hired, paid. They put advertisements of 
cures in the papers. He advertised that 
he had done things which he had not done; 
that makes a quack. That is what I un- 
derstand to be a quack. That is what I 
think the court will charge you is a 
quack. 
I will take up each case, briefly state 
the facts regarding it as shown in the 
proof, and then go to the next. 
The first is the case of John F. Jackson, 
vice-principal of the colored school. 
How is that advertised? Took at this 
article in the “Chattanooga Press”: 
“Live Like a Savage!” “The advice the 
doctors gave Vice-Principal Jackson. 
They declared it the only hope of saving 
his life, but it proved otherwise. He 
surprises all who know him by recover- 
ing and is now teaching school again. 
The new consumption treatment which 
is being discussed throughout the world 
of medicine is not without evidence of 
its worth in Chattanooga.” 
These are the flaming head-lines of 
the article, and then it goes on to say 
how afflicted Jackson wras; how he was 
near death’s door, and how he took this 
wonderful treatment. “I thought I 
never should teach school again, but here 
I am. I have a wonderful appetite. I 
don’t understand it. I only'know I took 
the treatment as instructed”; and is now 
teaching school (?) You all heard the 
testimony that this treatment was sup- 
plied by the agents of the chemical cure. 
Was Jackson cured of consumption? 
What did Dr. Love say? Jackson is 
dead! Died of consumption. Was not 
cured. That is lie number two. This 
case is a sample of their advertisements. 12 
ARGUMENT OF W. B. GARVIN, ESQ. 
l'ake it and look at it. That is an ad- ' 
vertisement put in the most insidious 
form. You notice il is in that paper, not 
as an advertisement, but as reading mat- 
ter; occupies the first part of the first 
column, first page, and goes in as news, 
under the guise of news, but is a paid ad- 
vertisement; it goes in that form, as 
you see, so as to deceive the people into 
supposing that this is the expression of 
the views of the paper, not of the medi- 
cine company. So that is the first case. 
Let us take up the next and examine 
it. The Board of Health of this city was 
attempted to be made the instrument and 
tool to advertise this concern. On July 
8th, 1893, there was an advertisement in 
the “Chattanooga Daily Times,” and you 
will notice how skillfully they worked 
this thing up, beginning gradually 
“GOING TO GIVE IT A TRIAL. 
A Prize Consumption Cure to be Tested 
in the City Hospital. The City Health 
Department has received fifteen boxes of 
Amick’s Chemical Cure for Consump- 
tion, which will be given a thorough 
trial by City Physician Holland when 
opportunity offers.” 
Let us go right on to the next. I read 
from the “Times” of July 23: “City 
Physician Treating Consumptives. Dr. 
C. H. Holland, city physician, reports a 
most remarkable success in his use of 
Amick’s Chemical Treatment for Con- 
sumption. The Times mentioned, sev- 
eral weeks ago, that Dr. Amick had sent 
several boxes of the different forms of 
the medicine to Dr. Holland for trial in 
this neighborhood. The latter has 
twelve persons under treatment in this 
city, and feels satisfied the cure will do 
all Dr. Amick has claimed for it. The 
twelve patients Dr. Holland is treating 
are so far improved that their appetite 
has returned, can sleep well at night, 
have no night sweats, the irritating 
cough has disappeared and they feel 
much stronger in every way. When 
consumptives return to such condition 
the cure must be getting in its work.” 
It did get in its work on a good many 
around here. They are dead now. 
Let us go on to the next reference to 
the alleged city cases. This is from the 
Times of August 8th: “THE CITY 
TEST PATIENTS. The Awful Third 
Stage Cases are now Wholly Recovered, 
The city tests in the hands of Dr. Hol- 
land are progressing magnificently. Of 
that the reporter (this reporter is Gos- 
doffer, paid agent of Dr. Amick, mas- 
querading as a reporter,) assured himself 
by accompanying the City Physician in 
his buggy to the lowly home of one of 
the charity patients.” It goes on to state 
what he found there, and concludes with 
the following: “‘This is a fair example 
of all the cases,’ said Dr. Holland. 'I no 
longer have any doubt at all. The city 
should immediately provide some means 
to supply the remedj' to all pauper suffer- 
ers who require it.’” You heard Dr. 
Holland’s testimony right here. You 
heard him say what the result of this pub- 
lication was. lie got letter after letter 
from all over the country asking about 
this remedy, because it seemed to have 
the sanction of the City Board of Health. 
Dr. Holland said that no such thing oc- 
curred. Isn’t that a lie out of whole 
cloth? That was the purpose of it. It 
was published in the Times, and you 
know that the circulation of the Times 
caused the impression to go all over the 
country that the sanction of the Board of 
Health of this city had been given to this 
cure and the Board of Health had proved 
its efficacy by a test of twelve cases. You 
know that was not true. Dr. Holland sat 
there and said on his oath he had not en- 
dorsed it, and had not treated any test 
cases. There never were any such test 
cases. Dr. Drake, another member of 
the Board of Health, knew nothing of 
them; hadn’t heard of them. They never 
existed. So here is lie number three. 
I cannot do any more than just refer 
to these cases and then go on. On this 
same page of the Times is something 
more, and this is the way it starts off: 
“More surprises daily at the hands of 
the Chattanooga doctors. The life of 
travelingsalesman George Goldston 
saved--Charles H. Gorman speaks of his 
experience—City patients all recovering 
—The physicians evidently on the right 
track for wholesale cures of dread con- 
sumption—More of the Times’ investiga- 
tion of the Amick matter.” Then it goes 
on: “No subject is at present receiving 
greater discussion in Chattanooga than 
the Chemical Cure for Consumption dis- 
covered by Dr. W. R. Amick, of Cincin- 
nati. * * It is the dawn of hope to 
thousands upon thousands in the South- 
land, and additional news is awaited with 
greatest interest. The The Times man 
(that is Gosdoffer still masquerading as a 
Times reporter) has been researching 
among the physicians for several days Argument of w. b. garv/n, esq. 
13 
with results which are intensely gratify- 
ing. The leporter has conversed with a 
number of well known residents of this 
city who attribute their life and health 
to the chemical treatment. One of them 
is George Goldston, traveling salesman 
for Rosenau & Crutchfield, wholesale 
dry goods dealers at Chestnut and Sev- 
enth streets. ‘I cannot recommend the 
Amick treatment too highly to you,’ 
were his words, when the subject was 
broached. 'When I get on the road again 
I am going to tell all my friends through- 
out the South of my experience. I am a 
living example of the wonderful recuper- 
ative action of the new cure. * * * 
1 had every symptom and fell away from 
175 pounds to 13q pounds in tiesli. Dr. 
Hunt, the County Physician, has been 
my regular attendant. He secured the 
Amick remedy for me. My hemorrhages 
at once ceased, the night sweats stopped, 
and now, after forty days’ treatment, I 
consider myself safely established in 
health.’ ” 
Mr. Rosenau was here and testified to 
the death of Goldston. He could not say 
positively that he died of consumption, 
biit he described Goldston’s symptoms, 
which were just the same at his death as 
when he began to take this so called 
remedy. He is dead. I will ieave the 
jury to judge what he died of, from what 
the witness testified as to his manner of 
death. 
Further on is another case: “Another 
prominent and popular young man who 
says he owes his present state of body 
and mind to Amick is Charles H. Gor- 
man, with S. T. Dewees & Co., Grocers, 
on Market street. His recent pitiful 
condition from lung trouble is almost too 
well known to require recital. He lauds 
the remedy without,stint.” 
You heard the testimony of Dr. Hope, 
who told you that Gorman never had 
lung trouble at all; was his doctor, and 
recommended him for life insurance and 
would do so again. There is lie five or 
six, I have forgotten which. 
Right on this page of the paper is this 
quotation-: “Dr. W. W. French, of 
Market street, homeopath, fre«ly tells a 
Times man that he believed Dr. Amick 
had found tne secret of the centuries. 
Dr. French claims instances are known 
of the cure of consumption by homeo- 
pathic treatment (a sop thrown to the 
homeopaths), but Dr. Amick’s Chemical 
Remedy is a broad one which may be 
adopted at large by the exponents of all 
schools of medicine. Dr. French will 
himself thoroughly test the Amick treat- 
ment.” 
Dr. French told you that was not true, 
lie said he had received a personal letter 
from Dr. Amick and had received the 
medicine and had tried two cases with it, 
and the result was that they improved a 
little for a day or two, and then collapsed 
—went right down; that the effect of the 
remedy was disastrous; and the statement 
that he had ever recommended the rem- 
edy was false. 
What is a quack? He is a man who 
says he can do things or has done things 
which he cannot do or did not do in the 
way of medicine—a boastful pretender. 
That is the common meaning of the word 
quack. Ask a doctor what a quack is, 
and he will tell you a quack is a man who 
resorts to methods not recognized by the 
profession. Any man who advertises 
would be considered a quack by them. 
That is their definition from the stand- 
point of medical ethics. But I wish to 
say that as a matter of law a man may 
advertise anything that he can do. If he 
can do a thing, it is his right to advertise 
it. We do not hare to stand in this case 
upon any limited definition. But a man 
has not the right to advertise things that 
he cannot do. He has not the right to 
send forth to the public statements that he 
has cured cases which he has not cured, 
with the view of deluding people and de- 
coying them into buying his medicine. 
If he does that, he is a quack. I think 
we have pretty effectually proved that 
Amick has done that thing, and is a 
quack, not only in the professional, but 
also in the common acceptation of that 
term. 
Here, on the next page of the Times, 
is another case: “Dr. Holland and the 
reporter then visited a private patient, J. 
J. Bailey, proprietor of the saloon at 
Montgomery avenue and Mitchell. He 
had been bordering on the second stage, 
had all the symptoms in pronounced 
form; he had coughed terribly for four 
years. ‘I have been using the remedy 
only two days,’ said Mr. Bailey,’ and I 
feel that it will cure me. Strange as it 
may seem I have already ceased to have 
night sweats. I cough much less and 
my expectoration is becoming more and 
more natural. I would not give it up 
to-day for thousands of dollars.’ ” 
You will see how rapid that cure was. 14 
ARGUMENT OF If. B. GARVIN, ESQ 
That was on july 30th; on August 8th 
we find the following in the Times: 
“Free and Full Tests—To Be Held by a 
Committee of Phvsicians. * * * * 
J. J. Bailey is proprietor of a saloon at 
Ninth and King streets, recently removed 
from Montgomery and Mitchell avenues. 
He w'ent to a prominent physician for 
•examination and treatment for his lung 
trouble. In his own words Mr. Bailey 
says: ‘The doctor took some of my ex- 
pectoration for examination under the 
microscope, and in due time told my 
wife I had an advanced case of consump- 
tion and would waste away in spite of all 
that could be done. He fixed the date 
ot my death for some time in October, 
meanwhile dosing me with beechwood 
creosote, beginning with three drops 
three times daily. He then gradually 
increased it to twenty-five drops three 
times daily without benefit. Two months 
ago I felt as though I were becoming 
paralyzed and I quit the doctor. Ten 
days ago I had City Physician Holland 
place me under trial treatment of the 
Amick Chemical Remedy. I began to 
improve at such a rate as to surprise my- 
self and wife. 
“I had every symptom of consumption 
in pronounced form, but have lost them 
and feel quite hearty. Instead of dying 
in October, I expect to hold a celebration 
of my recovery. 
“I cannot say too much for the new 
treatment and for Dr. Amick. The 
Times has done right in making an in- 
vestigation. I would like first rate to go 
before Circuit Court Judge Moon and 
make affidavit to the facts I have told 
you, and my wife would also.” 
Yes, he feels so well and strong that 
he wants to go before Judge Moon. An 
affidavit before a plain Justice of the 
Peace could not express his feelings at all. 
Now, Dr. Reeves told you yesterday 
that he examined this man Bailey, and 
found that he did not have tuberculosis 
at all. That gives the lie to that state- 
ment. 
After so much had appeared in the 
newspapers and Dr. Reeves had taken 
hold of this matter, it was proposed to 
have test cases, and this is the conclusion 
of it: Dr. Reeves proposed, and the 
Plaintiff in this case (the Amick Chemi- 
cal Company, which was behind Dr. 
Amick,) agreed that they would select 
cases and put them in the hospital out 
here and test that matter, and cases were 
selected—six of them—three of them put 
in the hospital, and three were to be 
treated at home. Dr. Reeves testified 
that they were genuine cases of consump- 
tion from bacteriological examination, 
and Dr. Hope and Dr. Sims testified that 
they were. Now every one of them is 
dead. Dr. Reeves and Dr Hope and 
Dr. Sims and Dr. Shepherd told you that 
they are dead, and all died of consump- 
tion. It may be that there was one, or 
perhaps two, of these cases in which we 
did not have the direct proof of the man 
who saw them die, but you know very 
well that if there was one of these test 
cases living to-day, he would have 
been here, or that there would have been 
proof of that fact here. They are all 
dead—all died of consumption. [Mr. 
Wiltse: There is no proof at all that 
they are all dead or that they all died of 
consumption.] I will submit to the jury 
whether or not there is pi oof of that. 
Dr. Shepherd said he saw one die of 
consumption; Dr. Reeves testified that 
he gave a certificate of the death of one 
and that he died of consumption. You 
know Dr. Hope said two of his patients 
died of consumption. We have not proof 
of one that he is dead at all, but if he is 
living, it is remarkable that there is no 
proof of that here. This is a case where 
the presumption is that a man is dead 
unless he is proved to be living. [Court: 
Confine yourself to what physicians did 
say.] I am not quoting the doctor as 
saying that; I am asking the jury to 
draw whatever inferences the facts will 
justify from the situation. [Court: You 
can allude to the fact that he is not here.] 
Yes, sir; that was the only purpose of 
my remark. I will just say of these six 
test cases in passing, that they were cases 
agreed upon to test this remedy. You 
remember the advertisement was that 
these six cases would be made a test and 
at the end, .if they were successful, the 
“Times” proposed to present to Dr. 
Amick a diploma or some sort of testi- 
monial of the fact. That diploma never 
was presented. Could there be proof 
more conclusive of the worthlessness of 
this nostrum? Will you not hold the 
plaintiff 1o the test he himself solemnly 
agreed to? 
I will go on from that to the case of 
Dr. Long, and here is a reference to that 
case: “Dr. James E. Reeves is arrang- 
ing for his crucial test, etc.; the patient 
in charge of the three doctors on the ARGUMENT OF W. B. GARVIN, ESQ. 
15 
West Side is recovering rapidly.” That 
was the case of Dr. Long. You heard 
Dr. Sims and Dr. Wise say what his 
condition was. He had consumption— 
he took this treatment, and he died. 
That was the patient who was going to 
Walden’s Ridge when he saw this adver- 
tisement of the Amick Chemical Cure; 
sent for it on his own responsibility 
while he w'as under the treatment of Dr. 
Sims and took the medicine and died; 
went down very rapidly after he took it. 
Dr. Sims told you how he seemed to be 
stimulated for a while, but the result was 
that he died, and the doctor says his 
death was hastened by the remedy. 
Here it is advertised that he was rapidly 
recovering. 
I will simply refer to the Bridgeport 
case which Dr. Zurmley testified about. 
That is another case where the patient 
took the remedy and died. Dr. Hope’s 
brother took it and died—died of con- 
sumption. 
Here is a case of where a man died 
who did not die of consumption. “IN 
DEATH A PROOF.—A Remarkable 
Case of Times Compositor Stewart.— 
While Slowly and Surely Dying of 
Bright’s Disease his Lung Trouble was 
Eradicated.—An Autopsy Revealed the 
Fact.—The First Known Post-Mortem 
Upon an Amick Patient.—It Is the 
Finest Thing I Have Known for the 
Lungs,” said Dr. Townes. And it goes 
on to describe how a post-mortem was 
held by Drs. Anderson, Nolen and 
Townes. They found that this man had 
two diseases—Bright’s Disease and con- 
sumption—and he took the Amick Chem • 
ical Cure and it was found in the post 
mortem examination that he had died of 
Bright’s Disease, but in the meantime he 
had been cured by the Amick Chemical 
Cure of consumption. Drs Anderson 
and Nolen say this is false. Dr. Ander- 
son says that he told the man who wrote 
this article at the time that Stewart did 
not have consumption and never did 
have it. He is advertised as a man cured 
of consumption while he had this other 
disease. Notwithstanding he is dying 
of one disease this remedy is curing him 
of another. It is most outrageous for 
them to use this kind of advertisement. 
That is what they say it did; they quote 
Drs. Anderson, Nolen and Townes to 
prove it, but the doctors say he did not 
have consumption at all. This man died 
early in July and they waited 
until August 6th to publish this, and 
quote Dr. Townes as saying, “It is the 
finest thing I know of for the lungs.” 
They wait so long, why? Because in 
the meantime Dr. Townes had gone to 
Europe and could not deny it until he 
returned and got on the stand yesterday 
and he said it was “a lie!” Is not that 
quackery ? What more than that do you 
want to make quackery? 
They do not stop with publishing these 
things in the “ Times.” Here is the way 
this same case appears in their latest 
pamphlet: ‘ POST-MORTEM PROOF. 
An autopsy furnishes conclusive evi- 
dence. C. E. Stewart, a well known 
compositor on the Chattanooga Times, 
was a sufferer with consumption com- 
plicated with incurable Bright’s Disease ” 
It goes on to tell about his death, and 
that at the request of his brother, S. B. 
Stewart, an autopsy was held. “The ex- 
amination completely vindicated Dr. 
Amick’s claims for his treatment; that it 
had performed its work magnificently, 
leaving the respiratory organs in splen- 
did condition.” 
I do not think it is necessary to go on 
with this further. I think we have sus- 
tained the charges in Dr. Reeves’ article. 
Is not this a worthless nostrum, and is 
not a man who says he does these things 
and does not do them, a quack? I wish 
I had time to go through this article 
word by word, line by line, and prove 
every word and line of it true. “The 
open court which you have established 
in the Times is most opportune.” Re- 
member this letter was written by Dr. 
Reeves in response to an invitation in• 
serted in the Times by Dr. Amick’s 
agent,inviting comment and criticism and 
expression of views by doctors, and the 
editor of the Times saw Dr. Reeves and, 
on account of his reputation in this line, 
asked him to contribute his views, and 
he did so. And the first thing Dr. 
Reeves says is: “The open court which 
you have established in the Times is 
most opportune ” Was it not time that 
somebody was exposing this fraud? 
Here was advertisement after advertise- 
ment going all over the country, mis- 
leading the people. Was it not time for 
somebody to step forward and expose 
this fraud? I say the open court was 
indeed most opportune.” Again, Dr. 
Reeves says: “The methods employed 
by Dr. Amick are plainly those of the 
most brazen-faced quacks.” Did you 16 
ARGUMENT OF W4 B. GAR VIN, ES$_. 
ever hear of any thing more brazen-faced ? 
The ordinary quack will advertise in the 
newspapers and through his almanacs, 
but he admits that it is just an advertise- 
ment; while these people undertook to 
subsidize the whole press of the country, 
having it put out as news on its own re- 
sponsibility, accounts of great cures; and 
this is the most insidious form of adver- 
tisement that can be used; and as these 
advertisements were false, we havfe justi- 
fied Dr. Reeves in making the state- 
ment: “The methods employed by Dr. 
Amick are plainly those of the most 
brazen-faced quacks ” In proof see his 
forty-page pamphlet setting forth the 
virtues of his “Chemical Treatment.” 
On the initial page he gives the follow- 
ing racy morsel: “The wise doctor 
knows a good thing when he sees it, 
therefore we need not urge him to be 
early in the field with this new treat- 
ment ” The same publication tells 
further that “The Chemical Company is 
an incorporated concern with a paid up 
capital stock of $300,000.” Well, do not 
those racy morsels appear in the pam- 
phlet? Is there any question about 
that? Is Dr. Reeves to be mulcted in 
damages for quoting extracts from 
Amick’s own advertisement? “Is that 
the way for scientific inquiry? Is that 
the way of a reputable physician in dis- 
charge of his duty' to society and obliga- 
tion to the profession which gave him 
honor and standing among men? From 
first to last of his forty-page pamphlet 
sent out to catch the pockets and last 
hopes of the sick and dying, there are 
not to be found a half dozen cases of 
undeniable tubercula*- consumption. The 
testimonials are cunningly stated, but 
when read b\' the intelligent physician 
they are meaningless and therefore ut- 
terly worthless in the discovery of medi- 
cal truth.” 
That is so; here is this pamphlet. I 
have not time to read all these cases ad- 
vertised as cured of consumption, but you 
have seen that there is not a single case 
there in which an examination was made 
that showed the presence of the tubercle 
bacillus, the “bug” that Mr. Wiltse refers 
to, that proves a man has consumption. 
These cases all purport to give only the 
results of the first ten days’ treatment, 
and are testimonials to the beneficial ef- 
fects of the preliminary or free treatment. 
The unvarying testimony of the witnesses 
here is that the remedy did have an un- 
duly stimulating effect at first, but the 
patient grew rapidly worse afterwards. 
There is nothing in that part of the article 
that is not true. 
“If Dr. Ainick had been moved by a 
,spirit of true scientific inquiry, he could 
have found in the city of Cincinnati am- 
ple opportunities for convincing the whole 
world of the value of his ‘Chemical 
Treatment.’ There, at his own home, lie 
could have had in the great Cincinnati 
Hospital sufficient clinical material to 
prove the truth of his assumption, and an 
audience of the great men of that city to 
either indorse or condemn his claims.” 
Well, that is true. WI13' didn’t he go 
to the hospitals of Cincinnati and test his 
treatment? Has the plaintiff offered any 
explanation of his failure to pursue this 
course? 
But I am reminded that the time al- 
lotted to me has expired. Gentlemen of 
the jury, I could go through this letter of 
Dr. Reeves sentence by sentence, and 
show you from the proof that every state- 
ment it contains is true, every criticism he 
makes, however severe, is justified by the 
facts, and every epithet it applies to Dr. 
Amick or his so-called remedy is richly 
deserved. But that is not necessary. 
You have the letter before you, and you 
will remember the evidence. I am will- 
ing to rest the case upon the proposition 
that Dr. Reeves has stated nothing but 
the truth. It required* no little courage 
on his part thus to attack and expose the 
fraudulent pretense of this rich and pow- 
erful corporation, indorsed, as it seemed 
to be, by an almost unanimous public 
press. His age, and the eminence which 
he has so long and justly enjoyed in the 
medical world, leave no room for the im- 
putation to him of petty malice or envy. 
In what he did, it must be evident to j'ou, 
he was actuated onty by a sense of duty 
to the public and to his profession. That 
duty he discharged fearlessly and success- 
fully, and for so doing not only this com- 
munity, but the country at large, owes 
him a debt of gratitude. It remains for 
you to say whether you think his services 
merit the penalty of a judgment for 
damages. ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, BSD. 
17 
ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, ESQ. 
May it please the Court: Before pro- 
ceeding to a discussion of the facts to the 
jury, I desire to call your Honor’s atten- 
tion to a few propositions of law which 
we desire embodied in the charge to the 
jury. We ask your Honor, in the first 
place, to charge in substance as follows: 
If the jury are satisfied that the words 
spoken or published are true, in sub- 
stance and in fact, they must find for the 
defendant, although he may have spoken 
or published the words maliciously. In 
other words, if we have proved the truth 
of the words published, then, under our 
pleas of justification, the question of 
malice need not be considered by the 
jury. The truth of the language pub- 
lished, when established, is a conclusive 
defense to the action. 
On the question of privileged commu- 
nications we ask your Honor to charge 
the jury as follows: Every one who, with 
reasonable cause for the belief, believes 
himself possessed of knowledge which, if 
true, does or may affect the rights and in- 
terests of another, has the right in good 
faith to communicate his belief to that 
other. He may make the communication 
with or without previous request, and 
whether or not he has any personal inter- 
est in the subject matter of the communi- 
cation, and although no reasonable or 
probable cause for the belief may exist. 
The right is founded on belief, Did Dr. 
Reeves believe, at the date of the publi- 
cation, that he was justified, from all the 
circumstances and from the investigation 
he had made at home and abroad, that he 
had the right to make this publication in 
the interest of society and humanity? If 
so, he was justified in making the same. 
All we have to determine is whether tine 
defendant stated more than what he might 
reasonably believe. If he stated no more 
than this, he is not liable. We insist that 
the circumstances under which the publi- 
cation was made fully warranted the de- 
fendant in using the language complained 
of, and that no liability attaches for the 
use of the same. 
The authorities say that when a person 
is so situated that it becomes right, in the 
interest of society, that he should tell a 
third person certain faqts, then if he 
bona fide and without malice does tell 
him, it is a privileged communication. 
Now, if your Honor please, we ask you 
to charge the jury that plaintiff, jq his 
declaration, has made 90 charge of actual 
malice on the part of the defendant against 
the plaintiff, and that being true, the mo- 
ment this publication appears to be con- 
ditionally privileged, there being no 
charge of actual malice in the declaration, 
then the defendant is entitled to a verdict 
in this case. If it is desired to raise the 
issue of actual malice, this must be done 
in the declaration by an averment to that 
effect. There is nothing in the declara- 
tion on this subject, except the usual and 
ordinary charge that defendant falsely 
and maliciously published the article. 
The plaintiff is supposed to know under 
what circumstances this publication was 
made, and if he desired to take it without 
the privilege he must allege in the declar- 
ation that it was made with malice in fact 
toward the plaintiff. 
We request the Court to further charge 
the jury as follows: Every person has 
a right to publish fair and candid criti- 
cisms, although the author may suffer 
loss from it. Such a loss the law does 
not consider as an injury, because it is a 
loss which the person ought to sustain. 
It is, in short, the loss of fame and profits 
to which he was never entitled. When 
an individual invites public attention in 
any way, or appeals for public patronage 
(dealers in patent medicines, advertisers 
for all business enterprises) he challenges 
public criticism. When a medical man 
brings forward some new method of treat- 
ment and advertises it largely as the best 
and only cure for some particular disease 
or all diseases at once, he may be said to 
invite public attention. The plaintiff in 
this case had advertised extensively, in 
public pamphlets and through the news- 
papers, that he was the discoverer of a 
new and wonderful cure for tubercular 
consumption, and having, of his own voli- 
tion, sought these mediums through which 
to advertise and place before the public 
his alleged remedy, the defendant had the 
right to go into the same forum sought by 
the plaintiff and criticise his methods and 
alleged cure, if the same was done in good 
faith, without malice, and in temperate 
language, and plaintiff cannot compIafePif 
he got the worst of the controversy/ bns 
If your Honor please, we insist 
authorities fully sustain 
that whenever the 
from the 
to be privileged thin'i3kft;#fcl 
be shown on the,<|yA^t;Jdf th&l doffehda.i’WTto*- 
ward the plaifiti#c^di«%gwte»Wfy 18 
ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, ESQ. 
be had in the case, and I think it is also 
well established that actual malice must 
be charged in the declaration. 
Now, if your Honor please, as to the 
second count: It purports to charge 
libel. That means that the article com- 
plained of was not only written or caused 
to be written by the defendant, but that 
the same was published. We insist aqd 
ask you to charge the jury that, under the 
facts as developed in this case, if any lia- 
bility attached for the words used it must 
be recovered in an action for slander and 
not libel. Dr. Reeves did not write a 
word. The reporter, while talking with 
defendant, made notes of the conversation, 
using his own language and not Dr. 
Reeves’, and the article so prepared by 
the reporter was never published at all. 
If the plaintiff desires to recover on ac- 
count of any injury sustained by reason 
of that interview he must do so on a 
charge of slander and not libel. 
If your Honor please, another question: 
It is developed in proof in this case that 
this remedy, whatever it is, good or bad, 
belongs to a corporation and, conse- 
quently, that Dr. Amick, individually, 
does not own the remedy, and the main 
charge in the declaration is, and the proof 
goes mainly to that question, that the 
language complained of was used in refer- 
ence to this alleged Amick Chemical 
Consumption Cure, and it necessarily 
follows that if any one suffered injury it 
was the corporation and not Dr. Amick. 
This being true, the plaintiff in this case 
cannot recover for any loss of profits that 
may have resulted from a diminution in 
the sale of the medicine or remedy, be- 
cause he does not own it, and there being 
no proof that he has sustained damages in 
any other regard he is entitled to recover 
no damages whatever in-this action. 
Gentlemen of the jury: The limited 
time allowed me for argument will not 
permit me to discuss in detail the facts 
testified to by the various witnesses. I 
will, therefore, only attempt to touch upon 
a few of the main facts in the case. The 
testimony clearly shows that, for the pur- 
pose of robbing the sick and dying men 
and women of this country, the two 
Amicks entered into a conspiracy more 
reprehensible than anything that has 
heretofore been revealed in the history of 
any age or country, and for the purpose of 
carrying to success the conspiracy thus 
formed, they felt the supreme necessity' of 
first muzzling and subsidizing the neyrs- 
paper press, and for this purpose they se- 
lected and took into their unholy combi- 
nation one S. G. Sea, a former newspa- 
per man, and then took in another man, 
also, who was not a physician and knew 
nothing about this matter; and they 
vested these two men, Sea and Spivey, 
with full control of the sale and distribu- 
tion of this alleged cure throughout the 
entire country. Now, gentlemen, can 
you believe that there is a spark of hu- 
manity in the bosom of a man who would 
undertake anything of that kind? The 
statistics show that 150,000 people die in 
the United States annually of consump- 
tion, and yet this alleged remedy is sought 
to be kept secret, and placed alone in the 
hands of a corporation (composed of the 
two Amicks, Sea and Spivey) for sale and 
distribution, such sales being conducted 
and the instructions for the use of said 
remedy being given by Sea, Spivey and a 
lot of clerks who are not physicians. Do 
you believe that a man who is great 
enough to discover a cure for consumption 
would be little enough to undertake to 
keep it a secret in that way? Hence, I 
say, they took this newspaper man in for 
the purpose of deceiving and subsidizing 
the press. They knew the importance of 
having the press friendly to their inter- 
ests, because, otherwise, their fraudulent 
scheme would be heralded over the coun- 
try at once. 
What further did they do? They im- 
ported this man Gosdoffer, who was also 
a newspaper man, from Cincinnati to 
Chattanooga, and procured him to be em- 
ployed as a reporter for the Chattanooga 
Times, and he being at that very moment 
the paid agent of the Amicks and »he 
Amick Chemical Company, and as such 
reporter and while acting as the agent of 
the Amicks, the work of writing up the 
alleged cure for consumption was spe- 
cially assigned to him, and I believe it is 
not overdrawing the truth to say that 
there never has been such lying recorded 
in the history of this or any other country 
as that fellow did. They were blowing 
their own horn sure enough. Their paid 
agent was engaged exclusiuely in writing 
up these alleged cures. They had a con- 
tract with the Chattanooga Times for 
advertising, and their own agent was al- 
lowed to write up and furnish the adver- 
tising matter. Under their contract 
everything appeared as reading matter, 
while, in fact, it was all paid for at double 
the regular advertising rate. They also had advertising contracts with every other 
newspaper in Chattanooga, the most 
notable contract being with the “Chatta- 
nooga Daily Press,” in which contract 
said paper, for a money considera- 
tion, agreed to exclude from its columns 
any comment or criticism unfavorable to 
the Amicks and the Amick Chemical 
Consumption Cure. For the publication 
of an article in an evening paper about a 
column in length they paid the sum of 
$100, which article was submitted to them 
for correction and approval before publi- 
cation. These false and fraudulent re- 
ports of cures were not only published in 
the Chattanooga papers, but all over the 
country. Is that reputable? Is that 
honest? If these reports had been true, 
it would have been all right, but we have 
shown that every person reported as be- 
ing cured, where in fact such person had 
consumption, is in his grave to-day! 
What more did they do? Not only 'did 
they deceive the newspapers and use them 
in this conspiracy, but they also attempted 
to deceive and bribe the entire medical 
profession into countenancing and parti- 
cipating in this fraud. They were smart 
enough to know that unless some induce- 
ment was given to the physicians to at 
least keep silent, they would discover and 
denounce this quack medicine and pro- 
claim it to the world without delay. So 
they went to the physicians and said, 
“Now we want you to act as our agents, 
like Gosdoffer. We will send this medi- 
cine to you for ten dollars, but when you 
want it sent to the patient through you it 
will be fifteen dollars, and you can charge 
your usual calling fees.” What does that 
mean? For every month’s treatment, 
they are saying to these physicians, we 
will give you five dollars, and in addition 
you can charge the usual fees. Think 
about that, gentlemen. And if it had not 
been for the fact that one man rose up in 
this community and said that this thing 
was a fraud, and he was going to pro- 
claim it, there is no telling how many 
hundreds of thousands of dollars would 
have been wrung from the suffering and 
dying men and women of this country. 
But there was one man, gentlemen of the 
jury, and there are plenty others in Chat- 
tanooga who felt the same way, who, for 
the sake of five dollars a month and his 
usual calling fees, would not sell his man- 
hood and lend his aid in humbugging suf- 
fering humanity, and he said, I will pro- 
claim that this thing is a fraud to the 
ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, ES$_. 
world, let the consequences be what they 
may. And you are asked to give a ver- 
dict against the man, who, because of his 
love of right and his interest in suffering 
humanity, did that, and who, at his own 
expense, has been forced to defend this 
action. Will you do it? I cannot think 
that you will. Will you give them a 
further advertisement by declaring that 
this alleged remedy is what they claim 
for it? I cannot believe you will be a 
party to proclaiming such a falsehood as 
that to the country. Why, a verdict of 
this jury, even for one cent, would be 
worth a million dollars to them, because 
it would be a virtual endorsement of 
their claims, and be sent by wire 
all over the country within one hour 
from the delivery of such a verdict. 
They would send it out world-wide, “Dr. 
Amick’s cure vindicated. A jury of 
reputable citizens of Chattanooga, Amer- 
ican citizens, said that this is not a quack 
medicine and that Dr. Reeves is guilty 
of libel.” Gentlemen, will you assist 
them to further perpetrate this fraud 
upon suffering humanity? I cannot be- 
lieve you will. I do not believe that you 
are made of that kind of stuff. 
So I say, gentlemen, having taken in 
the newspapers, as they did, if they had 
taken in the doctors, which they did not, 
what would have become of us? If the 
doctors had been bribed by this five dol- 
lar fee, with the newspapers already de- 
ceived and subsidized, what would have 
been the result? Wasn’t this, therefore, 
a most opportune time for some honest 
and fearless man to rise up in the inter- 
est of this most pitiable and unfortunate 
class of persons and denounce these vile 
conspirators in language and terms com- 
mensurate with their great wrong? Dr. 
Reeves, as it was his duty to do, pro- 
claimed to the world, Dr. Amick is a 
most brazen faced fraud and quack, and 
the proof has fully sustained this charge. 
The plaintiff, in his deposition read in 
evidence before you, admits that he is 
not a legally qualified practitioner of 
medicine in the State of Tennessee, and 
therefore his alleged practice in this 
State is in violation of the law regulating 
the practice of medicine and surgery. 
Now, gentlemen, is it a cure as repre- 
sented? Who has testified to it? Think 
of the six hundred physicians in Cincin- 
nati—that is the number who live there 
to-day—right where this matter first 
came up. Have they brought a witness 
19 20 
ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, ESQ. 
here, outside of the Amicks, to prove the 
efficacy of this remedy? No, not one. 
What the Amicks have said on this ques- 
tion is wholly unworthy of belief, and I 
don’t think you will give either one of 
them credit on his oath, because if ever 
there was dodging by witnesses it was by 
these Amicks, who did not know, accord- 
ing to their testimony, who the directors 
of the company were, which company is 
composed of only four members. I say, 
outside of themselves, what physician 
has testified that this medicine has ever 
cured or benefitted a single patient? I 
do not believe a word of the testimony of 
Dr. Amick to the effect that this remedy 
cured two men in Cincinnati, because 
such testimony is too much at variance 
with the testimony introduced by a num- 
ber of reputable physicians and witnesses 
in this city to the effect that this medi- 
cine contains no curative qualities what- 
ever. I do not know where his two Cin- 
cinnati patients are to-day, whether dead 
or living. They have been published as 
being cured. Certain men and women 
were likewise published in Chattanooga 
as being cured, and they are all dead to- 
day. If this is a cure, if it is what he 
represents it to be, or anything in that 
neighborhood, why didn’t he bring some 
of the physicians from Cincinnati here to 
so testify. Why didn’t he bring us just 
one disinterested doctor, or why didn’t 
he bring us just one disinterested man 
who was not a doctor, who would say 
that this medicine has done what he 
claims for it? It had been extensively 
used throughout the country. They 
have not done so, and it is reasonable to 
suppose that none such can be found, be- 
cause they have searched the country 
over to find witnesses favorable to their 
contention in this case. 
Now, what have we shown? Drs. 
Wise, Sims and Hope tell you about 
those six test cases. Are they not to be 
bound by their test patients? They 
agreed to it after the controversy had 
arisen. Dr. Reeves said he did not be- 
lieve that this medicine would do what 
it was represented, so they said, “All 
right, Doctor, we will make a test and 
determine whether it will or not.” 
Aren’t you going to bind them by their 
own test? They selected one of the 
patients themselves and agreed to all the 
rest. What became of these test patients 
we. ask? Every one of them is dead. 
The doctors testify that in some instances 
they believed the medicine hurried them 
off. Did the medicine do for them what 
they said it would do? The presumption 
is that these patients were satisfactory to 
them. The patient Lizzie Brown, spe- 
cially selected by them, they claimed to 
be a good subject, and not only this pa- 
tient, but all the rest of them died. Noav, 
gentlemen, Drs. Sims, Wise, Hope, 
Townes, Nolan, Shepherd, Love, 
French, Holland, Anderson, Drake, 
Zurmlv and Reeves all testify that this 
remedy is worthless. If that fce true, it 
does not make any difference whether 
Dr. Reeves had malice in his heart to- 
ward this man or not. I can call a man 
a thief if I can prove it; I can call a per- 
son claiming to be a lawyer, a shyster, if 
1 can prove it, and no liability whatever 
will be incurred. But we say, in this 
case, that Dr. Reeves, as he testified, had 
no malice against this man, and that he 
spoke simply of this cure and the method 
of putting the same upon the market and 
nothing more, and I think the Court will 
charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that 
the matter published must be considered 
by you in the sense it was intended by 
Dr. Reeves and as commonly understood 
by persons reading the same, and that 
you must find that the language used by 
him related to this alleged cure only and 
not to Dr. Amick in his individual 
capacity. 
Now, gentlemen, what more? We 
have traced down every case in Chatta- 
nooga, where it was claimed by Amick 
that a cure had been effected, and every 
one, who was shown to have had con- 
sumption, died. The two or three other 
cases that they advertised as cured, we 
have shown by the physicians who at- 
tended them, never had consumption at 
all. This is not all; they published in 
this city, and all over the country,-that 
eleven test cases, in the last stages of 
consumption, had been treated by the 
City Board of Health, and that they had 
all been cured. Was that true or false? 
Dr. Reeves investigated that matter. 
He went to Dr. Holland, the President of 
the Board of Health, and was informed 
that such statement was unauthorized 
and that such claim on the part of Amick 
was wholly false. Was not Dr. Reeves, 
therefore, justified in saying to the world 
that such claim made by Amick was not 
only false, but intended to deceive the 
public ? 
Now, gentlemen, what further? Let ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, ESQ. 
21 
us look at these cases. Jackson is dead; 
Long is dead; Goldston is dead; Hope is 
dead, and the six test patients are dead; 
Stewart, Gorman and Bailey never had 
consumption, as shown by every witness; 
still, they published to the world that 
these men had consumption and were 
cured. There is the Alabama case also; 
we had Dr. Zurmly here to tell us about 
that case. That is another case like the 
others I have mentioned, where the pa- 
tient took this medicine faithfu ly and 
the doctor says that it hastened her 
death, she dying in a week or two after 
commencing the treatment. 
Gentlemen of the jury, Dr. Amick 
claims also, that he can treat this disease 
successfully by correspondence, and 
sends a form along with his fort}' page 
pamphlet for the patient to fill out. 
Now, can he do that? To say nothing 
about the truth or falsity of the other 
things he has been claiming, can he do 
that? If he cannot, he is advertising 
that he can do a thing which he cannot, 
and if that be true, under the definition 
of a quack that the Court will give you, 
he cannot recover in this action. If he 
is a quack and his medicine will not do 
for patients as he claims, then there can 
he no recovery in this case. Every 
physician put on the stand was interro- 
gated on this question, and they all say 
that it is impossible to treat patients for 
any disease by correspondence success- 
fully, and that stands to reason and com- 
mon sense. 
It has been clearly shown, from the 
testimony in this case, that this was a 
conspiracy, more reprehensible and more 
far-reaching in its consequences than any 
combination or conspiracy that has ever 
heretofore been formed and entered into 
in this or any other country. There 
might be a conspiracy having for its ob- 
ject the robbery of one man or a bank, or 
something of that kind, which is bad 
enough, but when men deliberately, for 
the sake of money alone, enter into a 
conspiracy to rob the sick and dying 
throughout the entire world, what shall 
be said of them? What shall be said, I 
say, and what ought to be the punish- 
ment of such men, who, knowing that 
150,000 people die annually, in the 
United States alone, of consumption, and 
knowing the disposition of persons suf- 
fering from this fatal malady to catch 
even at a straw, will try to deceive and 
defraud them in the manner shown by 
this testimony? Hanging by the neck 
until they are ‘‘dead, dead, dead” is too 
good for such scoundrels and rascals as 
these Amicks have shown themselves to 
be. Every single doctor that ordered 
this medicine, as far as we have been 
able to learn, was published as endorsing 
the treatment. The witnesses say that 
this medicine is composed of strong- 
stimulants, and that during the first few 
days of the treatment patients very often 
seem to be improving, and, by an exam- 
ination of the numerous letters they have 
published as endorsing this remedy, we 
find they were mostly written during the 
first few days the patients were taking 
the medicine, and, this being true, such 
letters amount to nothing as endorse- 
ments of the cure, as the patients, at that 
time, were evidently under the influence 
of such stimulants, and there is nothing 
to show that such cases were ever per- 
manently benefitted. Still these alleged 
testimonials were so cunningly stated 
and adroitly put before the public that to 
an unsuspecting mind they often created 
the impression that they unconditionally 
endorsed the treatment as a cure. 
Dr. Reeves, before publishing his ar- 
ticle, had written t,o a number of physi- 
cians throughout the country, who had 
been published in Amick’s pamphlet as 
using and endorsing his remedy, and in 
reply he received letters from such 
physicians, each and all of them saying 
that they had never endorsed Amick’s 
alleged cure, and that the medicine, in 
their opinion, was a fraud, some of the 
writers saying that they had treated as 
high as twelve cases with the Amick 
cure and that every patient had died. 
Some of such doctors said that, simply to 
satisfy their patients, they ordered the 
medicine without saying more, and that 
this was seized upon by Amick as an 
excuse for publishing their names as 
endorsing the treatment. Hence it was 
that if a doctor ventured to order a pack- 
age of this medicine, in the hope that it 
might do some good, they rushed right 
off and put his name in the newspaper 
or in this pamphlet as advocating the 
remedy. 
Now, gentlemen pf the jury, they have, 
in the declaration, averred the meaning 
and intention of the language used by 
Dr. Reeves, as my associate has told you. 
They say that the purpose and intention 
of this publication was to advertise Dr. 
Amick as a quack, and that his medicine 22 
ARGUMENT OF E. S. DANIELS, ESQ. 
would not do what he claimed for it. If, 
under the first plea to the declaration, we 
have shown that he is a quack, and that 
his medicine is not what he represented, 
then we have justified, as the law calls it, 
and it does not make any difference 
whether there was any malice on the 
part of Dr. Reeves toward the plaintiff or 
not, because we have proved the truth of 
what we said. We said, in our publica- 
tion, that he was a quack and his alleged 
remedy a worthless nostrum, and these 
charges are fully sustained by the proof. 
But, gentlemen of the jury, for the 
purpose of this argument, 1 might admit 
that there was not a single word of truth 
in the article published. I say I might 
admit, for the sake of argument, that 
plaintiff had, upon the trial of this case, 
fully succeeded in proving that what Dr. 
Reeves said was not true; still, I claim 
that, under the law, Dr. Reeves cannot 
be held responsible in this case. And 
why not? Because he had investigated 
this matter; he had gone to those people 
whom they had advertised as being 
cured; he had gone to the City Physi- 
cian, who was the President of the City 
Board of Health; he had written to 
twenty-five or thirty doctors, throughout 
the country, whom they had advertised 
as using this remedy and endorsing it as 
a cure; he had sought information from 
every source possible before making this 
publication, and from everywhere came 
the answer that Amick was pursuing the 
methods of a quack and his alleged rem- 
edy was a fraud. Didn’t he use precau- 
tion? Didn’t he inquire of the identical 
persons whom they advertised as endors- 
ing the cure? Wasn’t he entitled to 
write to their own witnesses and ask 
about their experience and whether their 
advertisements were fraudulent or not? 
Yes, he did all that at his own expense, 
and he received his communications, and 
he went to the newspapers and said, in 
substance: “I have investigated this 
matter; here are physicians from Maine 
to California and from the Lakes to the 
Gulf, who state that their endorsements 
of this cure were unauthorized and that 
this alleged cure is a fraud.” 
Now, gentlemen of the jury, after he 
had made such investigation and pro- 
cured all this correspondence and had 
gone personally to these people in the 
city of Chattanooga, didn’t he believe, 
and didn’t he have the right to believe, 
that Amick’s treatment was not what 
he represented it to be, and that it was 
his duty, as a physician and a citizen in 
this city, to proclaim Amick a quack and 
his nostrum a fraud? They cannot com- 
plain, as they themselves began the con- 
troversy. Their own agent, while on 
the Times staff, probably wrote the arti 
cle inviting criticism. So Dr. Reeves 
was drawn into the controversy by their 
acts and at their invitation, and we say 
that even though every word of the pub 
lication be false, still, under the law and 
the particular circumstances of this case, 
it is a privileged communication and you 
are bound to find for the defendant. 
Gentlemen of the jury, the question 
presented for your determination is of 
paramount importance, not only to the 
medical profession but to the suffering 
and afflicted everywhere. And in view 
of this fact I want the verdict of the jury, 
composed of intelligent and manly Ten- 
nesseeans, to irrevocably settle the ques- 
tion that no breach of the law or rule of 
civil conduct is violated by denouncing 
and exposing the methods and aims of 
such pretenders, quacks, frauds and 
conspirators as the Amicks have shown 
themselves to be. The atmosphere now 
is so badly polluted and contaminated by 
reason of the fraudulent schemes and 
combinations formed and entered into by 
unscrupulous and designing men for the 
sole purpose of deceiving the people, and 
taking from them their hard earned 
money without giving in return value 
therefor, that it needs the clarifying influ- 
ence of a straight, clean-cut verdict for the 
defendant in this case. Let there be no 
compromise. Vindicate the honor and 
good name of the medical profession, and 
above all vindicate and establish the 
right of an honest and fearless man to 
speak the truth, when the truth should be 
told in the interest of the people among 
whom he has lived and been honored 
with their patronage and confidence for 
the last eight years. 
I know the honesty of purpose of Dr. 
Reeves, and the generous and kindly im- 
pulses of his great mind and heart. He 
was my mother’s doctor when I was 
brought into this world, and from that 
day to this a very intimate and warm 
friendship has existed between him and 
our family. He is not only my friend 
socially, but he is our family physician 
to whom we entrust and commit the 
dearest and most valued interests of life. 
I know him to be a true man and a skilled physician. On account of his 
great learning and ability in his profes- 
sion, and his high personal character, he 
is greatly esteemed not only in Tennes- 
see but throughout the entire country. 
And this is the man upon whose charap- 
ter and good name you are asked to place 
the stigma of having falsely and ma- 
liciously libeled W. R. Amick. Yes, 
you are asked to pronounce him a 
libellor and a falsifier, and thus tarnish 
and besmirch the good name he has for 
so many years sustained among his 
friends and neighbors. 
But, gentlemen of the jury, I must 
close, as I am admonished by the court 
that my time has expired. And in com- 
mitting the interests of my client into 
your hands, I do so with the belief and 
consciousness that right and justice will 
prevail. 0 
ARGUMENT OR IION. H. M. WILTSE. 
terview with a reporter stated to him a 
thing, although he may have expected 
that he would publish it, if it was not in 
fact published that would not be libel. 
Wiltse: He at the same time delivered 
this letter of Dr. Richardson as part of 
the interview, and that was written. 
Court: I shall, of course, instruct that 
if after that was set up it was shown to 
one or more persons, with Dr. Reeve’s 
knowledge and consent that would be 
publication. 
I have refrained from any interruptions 
after the one which Mr. Daniels criti- 
cised, although I am compelled to say 
that sometimes I did so at the expense of 
listening to patent misstatements of the 
record, and those things I shall, of course, 
have to call attention to as I go along. 
But I have not, by any manner of means, 
intended, bv keeping still, to make the 
impression that I regarded those things 
as in the record at all or believed them, 
for I did not. I was trying to behave 
myself according to their request. 
This advertising matter about which 
Mr. Garvin makes so much hullaballoo, 
is all advertising matter of the Amick 
Chemical Company. Dr. Amick cannot 
be held responsible for that in this law 
suit, nor in any other way. That is the 
Amick Chemical Co. Now, Mr, Dan- 
iels savs right in that connection that 
Dr. Amick does not own the Amick 
Chemical Co., and, therefore, he ought 
not to recover any damages that may 
have accrued to his medicine, his cure, 
his treatment. But Dr. Amick is shown 
to be interested in the Chemical Co., and 
he does not sue alone for the injury 
which arose to his treatment by reason 
of these libellous publications, but for the 
injury which arose to him in his profes- 
sion by being libellously called a quack 
and other epithets of that character. So 
that I think my friends have laid an al- 
together unwarranted stress upon these 
newspaper advertisements. They have 
come along here and shown that the 
newspapers did publish a great many lies, 
a great many ridiculous statements; but 
they have not shown that anybody con- 
nected with Dr. Amick or the Amick 
Chemical Co. had anything to do with 
the writing or publication of these things. 
Now, they undertook to say that Gos- 
doffer was shown to have been an agent 
of the Amick Chemical Co. There was 
no proof whatever of that. Mr. Ochs 
said, time after time, to Mr. Daniels that 
23 
ARGUMENT OF EON. II. M. WILTSE. 
Alay it please the Court and Gentlemen 
of the Jury: 
Dr Reeves has suggested to me that 
he feels that if his “confidential” letter 
to Dr. Amick is read it ought to be read 
in full. If I cannot do this, I shall read 
just such parts, of the letter as I deem 
best. 
[Mr. Daniels: If it goes to the jury it 
goes as a whole.] 
Your Honor suggested that you would 
like to hear from me upon the question 
of the second count as to whether or not 
that was a publication, and I don’t think 
of any authority except one. My im- 
pression is, however, that it is the ele- 
mentary law of the subject and Wharton 
lays it down in his Criminal Law, Sec. 
1623, as follows: 
“A party who communicates libellous 
matter to another with a view to its pub- 
lication, is guilty of publishing, on tne 
principle, that in misdemeanor all par- 
ticipants are principals. And one who 
furnishes the facts of the libel published 
in a paper, and consents to its publica- 
tion is indictable for a libel.” 
Court: Without regard as to whether 
it was in fact published? 
Mr. Wiltse: In contemplation of law 
it is a publication. 
Court: If it had been written and 
handed to one person that would be suf- 
ficient; one person other than the person 
libeled. But if he simply, in a verbal in- 24 
ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE. 
when he employed GosdofTer he em- 
ployed him as a newspaper reporter the 
same as he would employ any other re- 
porter, and did not know how it hap- 
pened that he was put on this particular 
line, except that he had information some 
how that the man had been working up 
the same line in another place. It would 
be utterly improper that we should be 
responsible for all of these publications, 
whether they are true or whether they 
are false. 
Now this thing, which Mr*. Garvin has 
introduced and misquoted. It is the very 
pamphet, and the record shows it, that 
Dr. Amick had withdrawn, because it did 
not meet with his approval. He did not 
know of it having been circulated, and 
when he found what it was he had it 
withdrawn. He did not sajr in the pam- 
phlet or any other place that he had an 
absolute cure for consumption. He saj's 
in his own testimony that he never made 
any such claim as that; that he simply 
claims to have a remedy which is benefi- 
cial to people in the earlier stages of con- 
sumption. “The author, knowing bej’ond 
dispute that he has worked out an abso- 
lute cure for diseases heretofore admitted 
to be incurable and profiting by the ex- 
perience of others has, in the interest of 
suffering humanity and for the benefit and 
protection of all conscientious physicians 
having an honest desire to heal the sick, 
placed his formula in trust with this com- 
pany.” This is not signed by Dr. Amick, 
but by the Amick Chemical Co. There 
are many other diseases which this is 
supposed to apply to; catarrh, asthma, 
etc. I do not suppose that anybody in 
the world ever claimed that there was an 
absolute cure for consumption in its later 
stages. Even these doctors do not pre- 
tend that they have any absolute cure. 
They lugged in several of their patients 
that they had lost and gave themselves a 
good boom by laying that off on the 
Chemical Treatment. 
They say that every one of these test 
patients died. We say that there is no 
proof of that before this jury and no proof 
in this record. I say, on the contrary, 
that they have only shown that out of 
six test patients (and the test was not 
made according to the terms agreed on), 
they say that out of six four died, f If a 
man can save 66% per cent, of consump- 
tives that have gone under the “bug 
scope” and been properly passed upon by 
a distinguished “bugologist,” a distin- 
guished “consumption-ologist,” if (hey 
can save two out of six such patient* as 
that, I say their cure is wonderful and 
the newspapers cannot laud it too highly. 
They ask why we did not have some of 
those test patients here to 6how that some 
of them survived. I can tell you one 
thing: I had a witness subpoenead to ac- 
count for every one of these test patients, 
but I don’t know anything about the 
whereabouts of those two patients that 
they do not account for. But tnere was 
one person that they had within their 
easy reach who could have told all about 
them and they did not see fit to bring 
(hat person here; and that was the Sister 
Superior, or whatever they call the office 
at St. Vincent’s hospital. Why didn’t 
you bring Sister Anita here and let her 
account for them ? 
[Mr. Daniels: Because the Mother Su- 
perior objected; it being against the rules 
of the church ] 
Now, Mr. Garvin tries to make fun of 
those questions that are sent out to the 
patients. He thinks it is perfectly ridic- 
ulous for them to ask them whether their 
relatives had consumption, whether they 
had certain symptoms. That all goes to 
show how careful, how conscientious, 
how piins-taking they are when they do 
undertake to send their remedies through 
the mails, or by express, to send them 
without their personal visit to the pa 
tient. Dr. Amick swears, and all swear 
that have anything to say about it, that 
it was not their purpose to send the rem- 
edy direct to the patient, but preferred to 
have it go through their family physi- 
cian If the physician understands the 
remedy properlv, understands his busi- 
ness properly of course he can handle 
that remedy just as well as the man who 
invented it. So I don’t think all that 
proof about not being able to treat con- 
sumption properly by correspondence 
cuts a very large figure in this law suit. 
I don’t think it is half as big as one of 
those “bugs” of the doctor’s would appear 
if he would put his microscope down on 
it. It is in proof that that thing has 
been done by one of the most eminent 
physicians in the Court. 
Mr. Daniels seems to be under the im- 
pression that because the Times issued 
an invitation to the public to discuss the 
merits and demerits of this treatment, 
because the Times instituted what it calls 
its “Open Court,” Dr. Reeves or any- 
body else might come along and, without ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE. 
the risk of being guilty of legal libel, say 
what he pleased through the columns of 
the Times; that the Times could fortify 
itself behind the “Open Court” and re- 
lieve itself from liability for libellous 
matter, and the correspondent who satt 
proper to publish such matter would be 
relieved from liability. ’That is absurd. 
There is no force whatever in that “open 
court” business. When a man publishes 
libel it is libel. I don’t care whether he 
publishes it in “open court” in the Chat- 
tanooga Times or on a postal card; it is 
libel just the same. There is nothing can 
protect it from being libel if it is libellous. 
Now, a good deal has been said about 
whether this business was malicious or 
was in good faith. They brought it out 
themselves that Dr. Reeves had been ar- 
rested for sending a communication 
through the mails that was in violation 
of the laws of the United States, about 
this matter. They brought it out them- 
selves about these postal cards being sent 
out all over the country. With these 
postal cards here in the record and with 
these answers, they talk about a conspir- 
acy,—they talk about our being guilty of 
a conspiracy against the flesh and the 
devil! And yet, while that may not have 
been their purpose, it is certainly possible 
that a conspiracy has been formed against 
us by sending this stuff out. Mr. Dan- 
iels talks about the expense of getting all 
this information in the interest of science 
and humanity. The expense was a pos- 
tal card for each one of the letters he got 
back; cost the other fellow two cents 
where it cost him one. With all that ex- 
pense he may have been entering into a 
conspiracy with these men to meet the 
requirements of this case, and to do the 
Amick Chemical Co. and Dr. Amick in- 
justice and injury in their business and 
in fheir profession. 
Now, I have been permitted to intro- 
duce this letter, and I believe, as my 
time has been extended ten minutes I 
may, perhaps, read it as a whole, as the 
Dr. Reeves has requested. I do not want 
to do the Doctor a bit of injustice and 
won’t if I can help it: 
DR. REEVES' LETTER. 
[Personal and Confidential.] 
■“Time, my Lord, hath a wallet on his back 
In which he carries alms for oblivion; 
A great sized monster of uncomely mien.” 
Chattanooga, Tenn., October io, 18m. 
IV. R. A rnick, M. D. 
My Dear Doctor: As my heart was 
-tvarm I thought I’d write you a letter— 
“nothing extenuate, nor set down aught 
in malice”—and through you return my 
most grateful thanks to the distinguished 
body of medical scientists and philan- 
thropists—the Amick Chemical Co.—of 
which you are the central bright and 
shining figure, for at least a score of 
copies of the following interesting letter, 
kindly sent me by the high-minded hon- 
orable gentlemen to whom it was fatally 
addressed: 
“166 W. Seventh Street, 
“Cincinnati. 
“Dear Doctor: We are informed 
that you received a postal card some time 
during the past month addressed to you 
by Dr. James E. Reeves, of Chattanooga, 
and making iuquiries concerning Dr. 
Amick’s treatment. We write to ask 
you to favor us by sending us his 
card, and we will thoroughly appreciate 
the courtesy and very willingly recipro- 
cate whenever you will give us the op- 
portunity. Truly yours, 
“The Amick Chemical Co. 
“E. L.” 
Some of these exquisite favors were 
accompanied with the Chattanooga 
Times’ “Biggest Ad.,V containing p. very 
poor picture of myself, and of which 
newspaper you and your company, no 
doubt, supplied yourselves liberally. 
But if this copy of the Times were all 
that was sent me by reason of your 
“malice aforethought,” you might feel 
thankful. Indeed, I am very sure if 
your eyes could behold the damaging 
proof against you and your cure—the 
unwarranted use of names, and the utter 
failure of your great discovery to make 
good your high-sounding promises—you 
would wish from your inmost soul, if 
you have not lost all professional pride, 
that you had not created a sensation in 
Chattanooga over a well-meaning postal 
card addressed to one of your faithful re- 
flexes, the “Professor of Physiology and 
Histology, Cincinnati College of Medi- 
cine and Surgery,” also “Bacteriologist 
and Microscopist;” and mark you, that 
in not a single instance did this commu- 
nication, laden with valuable evidence, 
come to me from a person whom I had 
addressed “in the interest of medical 
truth,” concerning your so-called Chem- 
ical Treatment. 
What a magnificent opportunity you 
missed because of your rage and lack of 
faith in your own precocious bantling. 
Having politely and in a sincere spirit of 
25 26 
ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE. 
medical inquiry asked your friend Juett- 
ner for the “outcome” of his experience 
with your “treatment,” he could have 
covered me with his testimony of the 
grand success of your “treatment,” and 
you with imperishable glory for having 
discovered (creosote, camphor and alco- 
hol?) a cure for.consumption! I could 
not have rejected his testimony, no mat- 
ter how servile and erroneous. 
Instead of taking advantage of my 
respectful confidence in Juettner’s pro- 
fessorial title, you saw the shadow of 
technical excuse for complaint, and had 
me summoned before a U. S. Commis- 
sioner to answer for the use of a postal 
card sent to your friend with good inten- 
tions; all this you did to prove the value 
of your nostrums and appease your in- 
jured innocence. Shame on you; for it 
is a confession of the shallow foundation 
upon which you and your company have 
builded. If you have the pure gold in 
your pocket, you would not care who 
said it was fishy, for you are ready to 
have it tried in the crucible; but if it is a 
Counterfeit you will by all means shun 
the fire-test. You should be careful to 
“Heat not the furnace for your friend so 
hot that it may scorch yourself.” 
But this is not all of the conspiracy to 
muzzle criticism of your methods and 
nostrums. In view of my engagement at 
the recent Pan-American Medical Con- 
gress, your most influential mouth-piece, 
the New York Recorder, lent its aid, 
Sept. 3d, in magnifying the cause and 
consequences of my arrest, saying that I 
had been “held under heavy bonds,” and 
in thus returning to its vomit, of course, 
extolled your wonderful Cure for Con- 
sumption! 
For another malevolent and cowardly 
performance I have the proof in the 
Cincinnati Enquirer, Aug. 27th, under 
big head-lines, “Dr. Reeves arrested for 
sending a postal card reflecting on Dr. 
Amick.” A copy of this paper with a 
huge hand, drawn with pen and ink, and 
finger pointing to the sensational para- 
graph, was addressed to “The Chairman 
of the Committee of Arrangements of 
the Pan-Congress;” and in this publica- 
tion it was stated that “Dr. Reeves ruas 
to have been a leading figure” at the 
Congress. Dr. Adams, the high-toned 
gentleman who had thus been addressed 
by a scoundrel, preserved the paper and 
delivered it to me with his scorn of the 
base spirit that prompted its use. 
God knows I wish you no harm, 
neither disappointment in any of your 
honorable endeavors; but it certainly 
cannot be a surprise to you that after 
having gone so far out of the way of your 
former professional friends who had 
given you their confidence and assured 
you of their hopes for your future in the 
profession, you should now receive the 
reward commonly accorded to quacks 
and nostrum venders; and it must be a 
sore trial, notwithstanding the great 
depths of your apostacy, for you now to 
receive the cold-shoulder of your high- 
minded and justly distinguished profes- 
sional neighbors. In other words, what 
return have you made your Alma Mater, 
who clothed you with her honors? What 
use have you made of the talents given 
you? Truly, for a “mess of pottage” 
you have sold your birth-right in an hon- 
orable profession and become a stranger 
in the land of your kinsmen. 
I am not yet “three score and ten,” 
nor am I “a patriarch,” as your mouth- 
pieces have reported, but I am old 
enough, probably, to be your father; yet 
you have sorrowed me inexpressibly by 
your desperate resort to suppress an in- 
quiry which you would have “all the 
world and the rest of mankind” believe 
you heartily encouraged. Why did you 
not—instead of coming to Chaftanooga 
—go into the great Cincinnati Hospital 
with your claim of a cure for consump- 
tion, there ask for any number of beds 
for trial cases, and then call the great 
doctors of your city to come witness the 
triumph of your so-called Chemical 
Treatment? Why have you not gone 
before some ot the learned societies with 
your cure? Indeed, why did you not go 
to the, Pan-Congress and there convince 
the multitude of your grand discovery of 
a cure for consumption? 
And why, if you are an honest man 
and a Christian, have you appealed to 
the advertising columns of the secular 
press to prove by extravagant reports the 
value of your treatment aad claim to im- 
mortality in the history of American 
medical quackery? 
Should a cure for consumption, worthy 
of the name, shun the most searching in- 
quiry into its claims? Would it require 
newspaper advertisements cunningly de- 
vised to attract attention of the sick, 
while thousands upon thousands of the 
very flower of the population are perish- 
ing from the want of a successful treat- ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE. 
27 
ment of the dreadful malady? Seeing 
the endless deceptions that have been 
perpetrated by quacks and vile pretend- 
ers in medicine upon this most pitiable 
class of invalids, ought not the discoverer 
of a sure cure for consumption have 
charity and compassion rather than 
malice for the incredulous? Should he 
not have liberality of mind and largeness 
of soul equal in extent to the whole 
world’s obligation and praise, which he 
would receive, for his priceless gift to 
mankind? Should fiis thirst for money 
drive him into the courts against a dis- 
believer in his claims of a great dis- 
covery? Seal his heart, blind his eyes, 
and make deaf his ears to the cries for 
help that come up from pleading hearts 
for life and health all over the world ? 
Nay, verily. 
Are you not familiar with the appall- 
ing fact that tubercular consumption in 
the United States kills 150,000 people 
annually, or more than three times the 
number of the population in Chattanooga 
and its suburbs? That every hour of 
the day and night, not less than 17 per- 
sons fall victims of this most insatiable 
destroyer? And is all this suffering and 
destruction of human life—all this loss 
of wealth to the country—due and charge- 
able to your demand that every fifteen 
shilling's worth of your nostrums shall 
bring you fifteen dollars in hard cash? 
that either the “ducats” or the “pound of 
flesh,” shall be delivered? Or, because 
the medical profession has refused to 
recognize your claim, and, in the name 
of medical truth, denounced you and 
your nostrums? 
Indeed, is the truth not stranger than 
fiction, that your wonderful cure should 
have been on the market for two years, 
yet at this late date require unauthorized 
names to your indorsements, and all 
sorts of newspaper advertisements—in- 
cluding criminal arrests, damage suits, 
etc.—to keep the thing afloat before the 
general public? Let your conscience 
answer, if you have such a monitor. 
Yes, you have made a record in Chat- 
tanooga and the country round about 
that will long outlive your nostrums. It 
is festooned with the damp of death and 
the failure of your high-sounding prom- 
ises—all for money—to save the dying. 
Even while the angel of death was hov- 
ering over the victim, your merry dance 
went on in the Chattanooga Times to 
the tune most deceiving and heartless, 
that the dying man was “improving 
rapidly under Dr. Amick’s Chemical 
Treatment”—the special music for the 
occasion having been furnished by the 
little corporal with his dandy nose- 
glasses, who was the “local agent of the 
company. This distinguished artist will 
not soon forget his experience in Chatta- 
nooga, I am sure. 
I have in my possession an undeniable 
proof of your methods and perfidy. It 
came to me through the family of the 
dead man—your own trusting petient 
above referred to as one of the victims of 
tubercular consumption in Chattanooga, 
notwithstanding your great discovery of 
a cure. It is a letter over your own 
signature addressed to the late Dr. M. L. 
Long of this city, and bears date Cincin- 
nati, July 5th, 1893, in which you had the 
hardihood and unmitigated gall to say: 
“The notoriety given me by the wide 
comments on the part of the secular 
press has caused me much annoyance, 
subjecting me to the unpleasant criticism 
of being an advertiser, etc.” Verily, 
this is Satan rebuking sin. What will 
the Chattanooga Times people, also the 
News people say ? How much had you 
to pay them for boosting your stock in 
trade ? 
By your own language you have ad- 
mitted it is discreditable for a physician 
to become an “advertiser;” yet while the 
words are falling from your saintly lips, 
lamenting the “unpleasant criticism,” 
you and your company are running your 
hands deep down into your pockets to 
pay the newspaper men for the “noto- 
riety” which you would have the public 
believe you do not seek. Falsus in uno, 
falsus i?i omnibus. Such rank hypocracy 
cannot long run unwhipped. 
By your consummate foolishness you 
have put a storm in motion you cannot 
quell. Already I have enough testimony, 
voluntary and pointed—enough to cover 
all the phases of your duplicity—from the 
mouths of your own witnesses to* “wipe 
the very earth” with your so-called 
Chemical Treatment. 
Besides documentary proofs that are 
pouring in from all sections of the coun- 
try, induced by your violent assault upon 
me, and unmitigated brass, I have a sad 
case against you near at home: A poor 
woman, who at the time of commencing 
your “treatment” was able to attend to 
the affairs of her household, had read in 
the Chattanooga Times of your wonder- 28 
ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE. 
ful cures and begged her physician to 
order for her the “free trial treatment.” 
It came promptly and its use begun at 
once, but the clinical histpry was as short 
as it was truly sad. The rectal injections 
—a part of the plan of treatment—started 
a diarrhoea that could not be controlled, 
and she died on the morning of the sixth 
day -after commencing the use of your 
wonderful discovery! Comment is un- 
necessary. 
I have the proof also that a dying pa- 
tient said to his physician: “Write to 
Dr. Amick and tell him his medicines 
hurried me off.” Of the six “test cases” 
in this city, one is already dead; and it 
really did seem that your medicines 
“hurried” him off. This case at St. 
Vincent’s Infirmary had been under your 
treatment several weeks before he was 
admitted and his poor sisters paid you 
your price for your nostrums. Of the 
remaining five cases, three have quit the 
treatment, believing after two months’ 
trial that it did no good, if not harm; 
the remaining two, if report be true con- 
cerning them, are making progress, and 
the “outcome” is not far off. Already 
one can nose it on the street, as Hamlet 
did the body of Polonius. 
The very artistic shading given your 
“treatment” in a recent number of the 
Chattanooga Press was a becoming 
tribute to your wonderful discovery. The 
negro patient and his negro doctor may 
serve you well for purposes of deception 
as advertising material, but you ought 
not to have disgraced the Tri-State 
Medical Society with the shine of your 
quackery. 
Did you not feel a bit slighted that 
Prof. Whittaker, of Cincinnati, should 
go before Jthe Association of American 
Physicians at the meeting in Washing- 
ton, last May, with his learned paper on 
the treatment of tubercular consumption 
without even the mention of your great 
name and wonderful discovery? And 
have we here another illustration of the 
old adage that “A prophet is not without 
honor save in his own country?” 
Can you tell who concocted the alleged 
London dispatch sent out from New 
York, Sept. 8th, saying your secret 
nostrums had been “Scheduled for con- 
sideration at the International Medical 
Congress in Rome?” 
We have near Chattanooga a fine qual- 
ity of blue mud which would answer well 
fbr monumental purposes; and if you 
will do me the honor to send to this city 
the party of “prominent physicians of 
England, France and Germany” named 
in the above mentioned dispatch, who 
are to “personally interview the discov- 
erer” in Cincinnati, I will have a cast of 
the group made and plant it squarely on 
Lookout Mountain to signalize my faith 
in your Cure for Consumption, and ap- 
preciation of your high professional 
character. If you will kindly send me 
your visitors, 1 will entertain them in a 
manner becoming your Royal Highness. 
Why don’t you have the Associated 
Press tell the world that Koch has ac- 
cepted your brilliant theory, accepted 
your Cure for Consumption, and invited 
you to Berlin? Such a reasonable story 
would go along very well with the Lon- 
don dispatch, that the Congress at Rome 
will discuss your “discovery,” and a spe- 
cial deputation will make you a visit in 
Cincinnati. 
“The virtuous nothing fear but life 
with shame.” 
But why not give us a little rest from 
the farce, seeing—unless you are both 
physically and morally blind—that the 
search for some new and successful 
medicinal agent oRpeans for the cure of 
tubercular consummation is as active to- 
day as ever before, notwithstanding your 
alleged discovery? You might, perhaps, 
make a successful sally for a few months 
at least with the newest discovery, just 
out, namely, dog’s Blood serum. There 
is some sense in it, and Juettner might 
aid you in working the matter up for all 
it is worth. 
But really, my dear Doctor, I have not 
the least pleasure in the performance 
which you have so very foolishly put on 
the bill-boards to your ineffaceable shame 
and the disgust of every honorable mem- 
ber of the profession. With the drop of 
the curtain upon the last act of your 
Comedy of Errors, there will be a fear- 
ful shaking of dry bones over your folly 
in trying to bulldoze the whole medical 
profession of this counfry. Verily, “The 
fool hath said in his heart, there is no 
God.” 
Finally, I submit the following item- 
ized statement of my account against you ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE. 
29 
and your company, with all proper 
credits duly acknowledged: 
Dr. W. R. Amick and his Chemical Co. 
To Dr. James E. Reeves, Dr. 
Aug. 26th, For sending out in 
the press dispatches without 
cover or authority of A. S. 
Ochs, Esq., the only author- 
ized Press Agt, in Chatta- 
nooga, a sensational report 
of my arrest $25,000 00 
For same furnished the Cin- 
cinnati Enquirer, and a copy 
of that newspaper—with vil- 
lainous pen and ink marks— 
addressed (o the Chairman 
of the Pan-American Medi- 
cal Congress, Washington. . 10,000 00 
For same to the N. Y. Re- 
corder 5,000 00 
For “special” to the Evening 
News,Washington, announc- 
ing damage suit for $25,000, 5,000 00 
For the use of my name gen- 
erally in advertising your 
nostrums 10,000 00 
$55,000 00 
Cr. By 1 postal card sent to 
“Prof.” Juettner 5 cents 
Bal. due me on account. .$54,999 95 
And now as a parting blessing, let me 
“in the interest of medical truth” com- 
mend to your affectionate embrace the 
following couplet: 
“Dare to be true, nothing can need a lie: 
A fault which needs it most grows two thereby.” 
Verbum sat. 
With all due respect, 
Youreb’t. servant, 
James E. Reeves. 
P. S.—Please be good enough to pre- 
serve this letter for publication in my 
Memoirs. For the frontice-piece of the 
volume, I should be glad to have your 
picture—cabinet size. 
On account of your morbid sensitive- 
ness in the use of the mail, I send this 
letter by express, charges pre-paid; and 
may the Lord have mercy on you! 
You see, Dr. Amick has gone a little 
in advance: that is what makes him a 
quack. He ha» stepped a little in ad- 
vance and they have got him where they 
want him to be so they can fire at him in 
the back. 
Now, don’t you see the absurdity of 
the thing. They are claiming that this 
man has done wrong and is a quack. 
They say he ought to have made his 
cure public and given it to the world, 
and yet,'because he undertook to make 
known to the world that he had it, he is 
a quack. In the first place, he ought to 
make it public and is a miserable custom- 
er because he didn’t do it; and in the 
next place he is a miserable sinner be- 
cause he has made it public to a certain 
extent. It occurs to me there is some- 
thing rather absurd in the standpoint of 
the profession upon these questions. 
Well, who is to blame if consumption 
does kill 150,000 people in the United 
States? Is a man to blame, is he a quack, 
a fraud, a scoundrel, because he tries to 
arrest the march of that awful enemy 
of human life. I should think on the con- 
trary, if he ean save one per cent., check 
this thing one per cent, of cases, that he 
ought to be regarded as a benefactor of 
his race instead of bfeing maligned and 
libelled as a quack. 
He is blamed because he wants com- 
pensation for the time that he has 
spent, for the talent that he has spent, for 
the money that he has spent in discover- 
ing this cure. They are mad at him be- 
cause he wants $10.00 for a set of this 
treatment, and say he wants a pound 
of flesh! 
Yes, he has made a record in Chatta- 
nooga, and he has probably kept some of 
these sensitive gentlemen from picking 
up some of this medical practice and, 
therefore, he has lugged off a pound of 
flesh, and that flesh has just worn right 
off from over their hearts because they 
lost that much of their medical practice. 
They have tried to show several times 
in the proof that that Hebrew, as they 
call him, with the nose glasses, was the 
agent of somebody except that he was re- 
porter for the Times. The nose-glassed 
Hebrew seems to have been a right lively 
bee under some of their jackets. 
You see, gentlemen, he is writing to a 
man who has never published one soli- 
tary word of advertising matter in his 
own name. He is writing to a man who 
has a right to advertise as much as he 
pleases, as the Court has told you, where 
he pleases, how he pleases; he is writing 
to a man, shown by the whole record to 
be a man of high standing in his profes- 
sion, against whom he says he has no 
malice in his heart and had none at the 30 
ARGUMENT OF HON. H. M. WILTSE 
time when he wrote the communication 
to him. If there is not malice in every 
line of that letter I don’t know what the 
definition of malice is. I will take it out 
of my dictionary and destroy the book. 
Like some savages who were told that 
there were bacilli in the water that they 
drank They said it was no such thing. 
The demonstration was made to them 
with the microscope, the instrument 
which the defendant wields so ably and to 
such good purpose sometimes; the de- 
monstration was made to them that there 
was life in the water, and what did they 
do? How did they answer that argu- 
ment? Just exactly upon the same 
theory that these gentlemen are answer- 
ing our claim that this remedy is superior 
for consumption. They smashed the 
microscope. And whenever a great man 
makes a discovery in medicine or any 
other science the medical profession 
comes along and undertakes to deny it, 
and if they cannot successfully deny it, 
cannot make people believe their denial, 
they try to smash the man, smash his 
reputation, smash his business. Read to 
them the very Bible of truth in medical 
science, and if it was advertised, if it was 
not within the line of their code of 
ethics, they would smash the Bible, they 
would burn it, they would destroy it, 
because, as I have said before, they are 
simply blinded by their zeal for their 
code of ethics. I understand that they 
do, sometimes, let a fellow say that he 
has moved his office. Once in a while I 
notice that a doctor has moved his office, 
and he forgets to take out his removal 
card. Of course he is not a quack be- 
cause he simply forgets to take out his 
removal notice; I reckon he isn’t to 
blame; but the code of ethics must be 
observed if the heavens fall. If a man tells 
a lie in a hack he will tell a lie in an 
omnibus. 
There was no proof brought in here, 
and furthermore there could have been 
none, that Dr. Amick had ever had any- 
thing to do with Dr. Reeves’ arrest for 
violation of the postal laws of the United 
States. There could have been no proof 
of it, for he had nothing whatever to do 
with it. 
I asked one of the doctors here yester- 
day if a man might not have consump- 
tion in its earlier stages and that disease 
complicated with some other, qualified 
by some other disfease, and the man be 
carried off by that other disease the ap- 
proximate cause of his death. Here they 
show that the cause of that woman’s 
death was not the cure but the way that 
it was administered. I am sorry they 
killed the woman alluded to in the letter, 
but I don’t want them to hold us re- 
sponsible for all the people they send to 
glory. 
Well, Dr. Reeves is beginning to admit 
that some good has been done; but after 
all he has discovered that some people 
do die—must die. 
I think that some of the doctors show 
that a great many of their patients make 
progress toward glory even when they 
don’t use the Chemical Treatment. 
Great CiEsar! Men have died after 
taking whisky and do you mean to say 
that whisky is not a good thing? 
That negro doctor was one of their 
witnesses here upon the stand yesterday. 
If a negro doctor is not good enough for 
their purposes outside of this court 
house, then they ought not to lug him 
in as a witness. 
He forgot to mention that Dr. Whit- 
aker is one of that class that just simply 
thinks that Amick is one that he wants 
to wants to help out of the country, out 
of the world if he can. 
You see he is accusing us of going to 
Rome to send out bogus dispatches com- 
ing from Rome. Tries to make it appear 
that Dr. Amick sneaked over there and 
sent that dispatch to New York and got 
back in time to hear Dr. Whitaker read 
that paper. 
Truly, we have here in Chattanooga a 
very fine quality of cheek that would 
answer very well for monumental pur- 
poses. 
Dr. Reeves is a good entertainer. I 
give him credit for that fact, because I 
know him. 
But he is not even willing we should 
tell that we had sued him. It was a mat- 
ter of public record. The newspapers 
told it and we were not to blame for it. 
That lettfer 1 should not have read at 
such length if it hadn’t been for the re- 
quest of Dr. Reeves that if I read from it 
at all I should read the whole of it. I 
would rather lose the force of a part of 
my speech than to do him any injustice 
and make him feel as if I were trying 
personally to persecute him as well as to 
sue *him. 
I want this verdict. I believe that the 
plaintiff in this* case is entitled to this 
verdict. I believe that this man has CHARGE OF COURT. 
31 
been maliciously inclined toward Dr. 
Amick ever since Dr. Amick became 
famous on account of his discovery of a 
cure for consumption. He says that he 
is a specialist. He says that he consid- 
ers himself an expert. He has the 
natural jealousy of an ambitious man 
trying to climb up to fame. It is not un- 
natural that he should be envious. It is 
not unnatural that he should be ambi- 
tious. 
The history of Dr. Amick and his 
Chemical Cure, as developed in this law 
suit, has been the history of the world. 
As I have said before, it has been the 
history of every man who has under- 
taken to give humanity an advanced po- 
sition in life. Our Savior announced to 
the world a new religion, and what was 
His reward? They crucified Him. 
Christopher Columbus discovered 
America, and what was his reward? 
They sent him to Spain in irons. 
Socrates took an advanced position in 
philosophy, and they made him drink 
poison to his death. Galileo had the 
audacity to proclaim that the world 
moved in a regular orbit and they put 
him in prison and put him in irons. As 
1 have said, Jenner was persecuted, Har- 
vey was persecuted; every great discov- 
erer of medical truth has been perse- 
cuted ; every man who has had the 
temerity to try to add some little thing 
to the sum of human knowledge has 
been persecuted, and from now until the 
day when Gabriel sounds the signal for 
the last resurrection of mankind, every 
man who dares to proclaim to the world 
a new and a great truth will be perse- 
cuted; and, gentlemen, in the interest of 
that humanity about which we have 
heard so much here, in the interest of 
that scientific truth of which we have 
heard so much here, in the interest of 
the sick and the dying, I beg you not to 
say that a man shall make a discovery in 
medical science at the sacrifice of his 
reputation and of his property and of his 
personal standing in the community. 
The verdict which we seek, we are en- 
titled to, I honestly believe, and, gen- 
tlemen, I know full well that you will 
discharge your duty as honestly as I 
have tried to discharge mine, and, I hope, 
with a great deal more ability. I thank 
you. 
CHARGE OF COURT. 
Hon. C. D. Clark, District Judge. 
Gentlemen of the Jury: This is an 
action of libel, brought by the plaintiff 
against the defendant to recover dam- 
ages for the alleged defamation of his 
professional character. You have been 
engaged, now, a day and a half in the in- 
vestigation of the case. The facts have 
been so much referred to, and so much 
before you, that I do not deem it neces- 
sary to charge you at such length as 
might be proper in a case which had 
consumed less time. 
A libel, as defined by the Code of this 
State, is “the malicious defamation of a 
person, made public by any printing, 
writing, sign, picture, representation, or 
effigy, intending to provoke him to 
wrath, or expose him to public hatred, 
contempt or ridicule, or to deprive him 
of the benefits of public confidence and 
social intercourse.” And what it takes 
to constitute a publication is thus de- 
fined: “No printing, writing, or other 
thing is a libel without publication; but 
the delivering, selling, reading, or other- 
wise communicating a libel, or causing 
the same to be delivered, sold, read, or 
otherwise communicated to one or more 
persons, or to the party libelled, is a pub- 
lication thereof.” And I give you, in 
instruction, that definition of a libel as 
well as that definition of what it takes to 
constitute publication. 
Now, before coming down to the act- 
ually disputed points on which you are 
to pass, it may save some confusion and 
save some trouble to make a few general 
observations in respect to this case as a 
whole and the ruling on the evidence, 
because there is much testimony that has 
been put before you and much offered 
that has been excluded. 
The letters and cards introduced by 32 
CHANGE OF COUNT. 
the defendant, as coming to him from 
physicians in answer to the inquiry put 
upon the cards have been allowed to 
come before you for the single purpose of 
reflecting on whether or not the defend- 
ant, in good faith, exercised reasonable 
care and caution, and as bearing on the 
plea of justification, about which specific 
instructions will be given you further on. 
The Court has excluded, as far as could 
be done, the evidence of what the rules 
of the American Medical Association or 
any other Medical Society are, because 
they were considered immaterial and as 
having no bearing on this law suit. The 
Medical Society and the Medical So- 
ciety’s rules may be important as promo- 
tive of the interests of the medical 
profession, but they are not rules of law, 
and no man is to be denied any legal 
right because he does not join a society 
of that sort, nor because he does not 
conform to the rules of such society. 
When his professional reputation comes 
under examination in the court, it is to be 
determined by the law that governs any 
other relation in life, and not by any code 
of rules adopted by any Medical Society; 
and for the same reason you will disre- 
gard, as immaterial, the testimony of all 
physicians and each physician who un- 
dertakes, so far as they do so, to charac- 
terize another physician as a quack be- 
cause he does not conform to the rules of 
the society. As stated, this is not law, 
and whether he is a quack, or whether 
his conduct is reprehensible, is to be de- 
termined by the law and not by any such 
standard as a code of that sort, or by an 
opinion expressed adversely to a man as 
the result of disobedience to that code. 
For a similar reason the Court has ex- 
cluded from you evidence of the fact that 
other physicians and other medical firms 
or concerns publish their medicines. 
Persons have a right, as a matter of law, 
to publish anything they choose in re- 
gard to a medicine, or to publish, as they 
desire, their profession or calling, and 
they commit no violation of law, and 
they do nothing legally wrong in doing 
so. The question of the responsibility 
growing out of making a false and 
fraudulent publication, intended to oper- 
ate on the public, is another question- 
There is nothing wrong in making the 
publication. The fact that a man goes 
into print with his professional reputa- 
tion and conduct, or with a medicine 
which he professes to have discovered, 
is not illegal, and what responsibility may 
grow out of the fact that he makes a 
false publication and deceives the public 
is a question that we will investigate 
further on. 
The letter, written since this suit was 
brought, and since the publication by the 
defendant, Dr. Reeves, to the company, 
has been admitted, not for the purpose of 
supporting the charge of a libel, but for 
the sole purpose of its effect, if it has any 
effect in your judgment, in showing ex- 
press malice on the part of the defend- 
ant Reeves, and as bearing alone upon 
the question of privileged communica- 
tion, about which instruction will be 
given further on. 
Now, then, that much said, and we 
come down to this publication and the 
issues which have been made in the 
pleadings. The plaintiff brings the suit 
and alleges that the publication set out 
in the declaration is a malicious and false 
defamation of his professional character, 
in consequence of which he has suffered 
in his professional reputation and in his 
business. The general issue is put in, 
but it is not controverted in the proof 
but what publication was made as stated 
in the counts except the last. But the 
defendant, by his plea, says, in the first 
place, that the publication as made is 
true, and that, for that reason, the plain- 
tiff has no right to recover. The effect 
of that plea is to say that "I made the 
publication and I stand by its truth.” CHARGE OF COURT. 
33 
And I instruct you that, regardless of the 
character of the publication, however 
severe it may be, if you are satisfied, by 
a reasonable preponderance of the testi- 
mony, that the publication as made was 
true, in substance and in fact, it is a com- 
plete answer and a complete defense to 
this suit: It is not necessary that every 
word should be proven literally as stated, 
but if in substance and fact the publica- 
tion is shown to be true, that is a com- 
plete answer to this law suit, and if you 
find that way you have nothing else to 
inquire about. A finding of that kind 
would, end the case and your verdict 
should simply be for the defendant. 
This publication, it being the duty of 
the Court to construe it, is libelous perse, 
and unless the truth of it is shown, other 
things aside, the plaintiff would be en- 
titled to recover, and to recover such 
general damages as are the necessary and 
natural result of a publication of that 
character, and of this you are, in your 
sound discretion, to judge as intelligent 
men. You will have nothing to do with 
the question of damages in the event 
you find the truth of the publication. 
That is the end. If, so far as the first 
issue is concerned, you find that the pub- 
lication is not true, then, as stated, it 
would be libelous, and, other things aside, 
it would be your duty to assess damages. 
In determining whether it is true or not, 
you will look to all the facts and circum- 
stances of the case; you will look to what 
was claimed for this cure on the part of 
Dr. Amick, or on the part of the com- 
pany into whose hands he put the treat- 
ment, and of what use was made of it by 
the company with his knowledge and 
consent. When, you have looked to 
what was claimed for it, as shown by the 
proof, then you will look to all the evi- 
dence, in like manner, which tends to 
sustain that claim, or to show that it was 
a false and fraudulent claim, and it is in 
that view that these physicians have 
been permitted to state before you the 
result of cases tested by them. You 
look to that, and to every other fact and 
circumstance in the case. 
Now, the libelous publication has been 
read before you a second time. The 
general purport and effect of the charge 
contained in that publication is that this 
remedy, called a chdmical cure for con- 
sumption, is not what was claimed for it 
by Dr. Amick and his company, and 
that it was an imposition on the public. 
Putting aside the particular forms of ex- 
pression and looking at the substance 
and body of the whole article, you will 
find that its general purport is that the 
cure was not a cure, as claimed, and that 
it was an imposition on the public for 
the purpose of obtaining monay from the 
suffering community. That is the ques- 
tion you have to decide. And in deter- 
mining what is meant by the use of the 
methods of quackery, or by other phrases 
and terms in the publication, you are to 
look to the subject which was then up 
for discussion, and about which the pub- 
lication was written. The ordinary defi- 
nition of a quack is “a boastful pretender 
to medical skill or knowledge,” and in 
respect to any question it would be “a 
man making professions that were un- 
founded, boastful and extravagant;” but 
you are not to consider any language in 
the publication in any abstract sense, but 
in reference to the subject about which it 
was written, and which, at the time, was 
up for discussion, and you are to give to 
the publication the meaning given in its 
ordinary acceptation, and as thus under- 
stood; such meaning as men of ordinary 
intelligence would give in receiving the 
publication, not in the abstract, but in re- 
gard to the subject about which it was 
made. 
The publication was in regard to this 
Amick Chemical Cure, the uses being 
made of it, and its effect and virtue as a 
remedy, and all language is to be con- 34 
CHARGE OF COURT. 
strued with reference to that. So that, 
having done that, if you find the publica- 
tion to be true, that is an end of the law 
suit. But if y'ou find for the plaintiff on 
that issue, that the truth of it has not 
been shown, then another inquiry' will 
become necessary', and that is whether 
the publication was justified under the 
circumstances and on the occasion when 
made, and that is the second issue. 
When the plaintiff put forth and adver- 
tised the claim that he had discovered a 
new cure for consumption, and invited 
public patronage, he thereby made his 
discovery and his claim so far a matter 
of public interest as that it was proper 
and lawful for physicians to investigate it 
and to express an opinion about it and to 
criticise it in fairness and candor, to speak 
through the papers to the public, giving 
their opinion of the remedy, and whether 
it had the virtue which was claimed for it 
and whether it did not have. This is 
called a conditionally' privileged commu- 
nication; and what is meant by its being 
conditionally' privileged is that it shall be 
made in good faith and without express 
malice and in the discharge of what the 
defendant believed was a duty' which he, 
as a physician, owed to the public. That 
is where it is conditional. A man may' 
not take advantage of the occasion for the 
purpose of giving expression to his malice; 
and I should have said to you, that if the 
defendant published nothing except the 
truth, on the first issue, it is wholly unim- 
portant whether he published it mali- 
ciously' or not. If it is tine it is not libel- 
ous, or rather it is a complete answer to 
the charge. But it is important, on the 
second issue, that it is priviledged only' 
on the condition that it is done upon a 
reasonable and well grounded belief in its 
truth, and in good faith without malice. 
In determining whether that is so or not, 
you may look to any' motives,.or the ab- 
sence of motives, which may have actu- 
ated the defendant in the publication; 
whether he took reasonable care and pre- 
caution to investigate the claims that were 
made for this cure and the effect of the 
cure before making the publication, and 
it is with this view that these cards of in- 
quiry and the answers of physicians have 
been allowed to go before you, Did the 
defendant Reeves, after reasonable in- 
vestigation and upon a well grounded be- 
lief that the remedy was not whart wras 
claimed for it, and that it was an imposi- 
tion on the public, make the publication 
in good faith for the purpose of informing 
the community and without express 
malice? If so, then the publication would 
be privileged; otherwise, it would not. 
In regard to the publication in the 
newspaper called the “Evening Press,” 
so far as that may bear on the case: If 
an interview was had with a reporter for 
the paper, a mere verbal interview with- 
out more, and that was not published, that 
would not be a publication in the sense of 
the law, although it may have been in- 
tended for publication. If, however, un- 
der such circumstances, it was set up in 
print and was shown to persons, one or 
more, in that form, with the knowledge 
and sanction of the defendant Reeves, or 
with his approval, then that would be a 
publication -within the sense of the law. 
You will now take the case, and if, 
after having given to the publication its 
fair and ordinary meaning, such as would 
be given to it by persons reading the pa- 
per, ou are satisfied by' a preponderance 
of the testimony that the publication made 
by' the defendant is true, then y'our ver- 
dict will simply be for the defendant 
without more. If, however, you find that 
issue in favor of the plaintiff, then }’ou 
will inquire whether or not the defendant 
Reeves, in good faith, without malice and 
upon reasonable grounds and in the dis- 
charge of what he believed was a duty' 
that he owed to the public as a phy'sician, 
made the publication, and made it in rea- 
sonably' temperate and moderate lan- VERDICT OF THE JURE. 
35 
guage, although the terms may be severe; 
if you believe that, then your verdict 
should he for the defendant. If, however, 
you find both issues in favor of the plain- 
tiff, then it will be your duty to assess the 
damage. You cannot allow any dam- 
ages (if you allow any at all) by reason 
of any failure to sell this chemical cure, 
because the proof shows that it is the 
property of a corporation and it is not a 
part}' to the law suit. Your assessment 
of damages would be for such injury as is 
done to Dr. Amick, the plaintiff, in his 
professional reputation alone, and such 
damages as naturally and necessarily 
would result to that reputation from a 
publication of this character. The ques- 
tion of malice, of course, or its existence 
or non-existence, can always be looked to 
on the question of damages and the 
amount that would be assessed. 
And last, whether you find for plaintiff 
or defendant on one or both issues is the 
question about which the Court does not 
mean to make any intimation by any- 
thing that is said. That is a fact that the 
Court leaves for you to pass on, and you 
now take the case. 
VERDICT OF THE JURY. 
The Jury, after being in retirement about ten minutes, returned the 
following verdict : 
“We, the Jury, find for the Defendant.”