>'J>"> ^
:j -> >  >  ->  ?
T> Ȥ>  ^>  >
> >  >  J> >    »  >> *.


5> >> 3» > >
> >J> >> J }

> ^>. >  \
 D ^> >   >
 5> >>   > -
» J >    v
3 > J
>v?
*  > >

—> >> 
Surgeon General's Office
Km§k
erection,.....................................
i ife&A ^ 2G?:6qc^ ^ oaldgog^
m
J r r 
)




) 
     100






ph.. tJc l>7+> >•••* 
THE
LEGALITY   OF   DRUG   PROVINGS
RECOGNIZED.
   Margaret Washington, a colored woman was employed in my family as
 a house-servant.  She  was  a fat woman of low stature, short neck and
 Usually languid in her movements.  She never complained of any sickness
 or asked for any prescription, she was supposed to enjoy fair health.  On
 the  15th of January, 1862, shortly before  supper-time 1 administered to her
 with her free consent, for a proving, about  thirty-five drops of tincture of
 Gelseminum.   This tincture  had been prepared'twenty hours previously
 with dilute alcohol, from a sample of the dried root.  After  supper I  went
 up-stairs to the second story front room and sat down at my writing table.
 While I was thus  engaged, Margaret hurries up-stairs from  the basement,
 comes into my  room breathing very hard, exhibiting in her countenance
 intense fear, and exclaiming "Oh, doctor, I'm dying!  I'm dying! do some-
 thing for me."  She attempted to lie down  upon  the bed, her head had
 barely touched the pillow, when she sprang up convulsively, calling out in
 a loud whisper " my breath, my breath."  She clapped  her hands across
 her  breast  rapidlv, seemed unable to retain one  position for more<than a
 few moments.   Finding that her pulse was below 40 and extremities  cold,
 I  resorted  to stimulants, and  sent out for the  assistance of two medical
 friends.  She rallied for a few  minutes, then struggled as for breath and
 cried out.  Presently she was taken with an excruciating  chest pain.  In a
 suffocative spasm  she  got down upon the floor, went into an apoplectic
 stupor,  breathed hard, foamed freely at the mouth  and died within ten
 minutes after the suffocative spasm.   Previous to the spasm she was con-
 scious and  rational; after that, she did not speak.   From the time of her
 coming into the room to her death  was less than half an hour, and the  time
 of death was within tioo hours after taking the medicine.
   Shortly after the death of Margaret I sent out for the coroner, requesting
 him to call  and decide whether, under the circumstances, it would be proper
 to hold  an  inquest.  Dr. Edward Lauderdale,  an  allopathic  physician,
 came, summoned his jury in a very unceremonious manner, this jury  also
 being exclusively allopathic.   He then engaged Dr. C. H. Barrett, another
illopathic physician, to make the post-mortem examination.  The coroner's
                     1 
 2 .         LEGALITY OF  DRUG  PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.

 jury returned a verdict that the remote cause of death was disease of the
 pericardium and the immediate cause the injudicious administration of Gel-
 seminum by Dr. Lodge.
   The day after the rendition of the verdict the prosecuting attorney, David
 E. Harbaugh, another allopath, makes an information that I had unlawfully
 killed Margaret Washington, upon  this I  was held to trial.   [In this state
 grand juries have been abolished.]
   The case came on for trial on the 20th of May, 1862, before the Recorder,
 Honorable Henry A. Morrow.  The jury being sworn, the prosecutor thus
 opened his case:
   " The defendant, Edwin A. Lodge, who  is I believe a doctor, on the 15th
 of January, having a decoction  (:) of a root  called Gelseminum, gave a
 quantity to the deceased Margaret Washington.  Certain effects were pro-
 duced.  In one and a half hours she died.   It will be a question for you to
 determine  whether, under the circumstances, the administration of the
 Gelseminum  causing  death, whether the defendant has not committed an
 offence against the laws of the land.
   " We shall show she died from no other cause than the administration of
 the  poison.  If so, and  it was improperly and recklessly administered, al-
 though there was no intention to produce death, the  defendant is responsible.
   " The general law relating to these cases is this : "If a person, whether
 a medical  man or not,  profess to deal with  the life  or health of another, and
 if he cause the death of the other through a gross want of either"  (care or
 knowledge) " he will be guilty of manslaughter."
   " The law duly protects physicians.  We do not charge them with cri-
 minality when they are unfortunate in their piactice, if they used ordinary
 skill and diligence, but in this case the  evidence will disclose that  the de-
 fendant was not treating the  deceased as a patient, she was not an invalid.
 It was a mere experiment to determine the  strength of the medicine.  It dif-
 fers, therefore, from cases  where  physicians  are  operating upon  their
 patients."
  Dr. Charles H.  Barrett sworn :
 r Made a post-mortem  examination of Margaret  Washington.  I opened
 the  head  and examined the brain and  its membranes.  Substance of the
 brain in perfect health, there was  considerable venous congestion of the
 membranes of the brain.   Substance of lungs healthy, pleura slightly ad-
 herent,  old adhesions, three or four perhaps (!).  The heart of natural  size,
 pericardium slightly adherent  to sternum, within the sac I found a quantity
 of light-colored serous fluid to the amount of three ounces, I should judge (!).
 I did not measure  or weigh it.  I guessed at it (!).   There was much more
 than the usual quantity.  Stomach, no  signs of inflammation.  Liver and
 spleen healthy.
  1 know  nothing about the Gelseminum practically.  I have studied it in
 the books.   It  is  a depressant acting upon the circulatory  and nervous
 systems.  It relaxes the  muscular system.  It acts upon  the brain, also
 upon the eye, producing double vision.  In my opinion  the serum  around
 the heart would cause the action  of the heart to be more labored, making
 the effect of a medicine acting on the heart to be  more deleterious.  The
 disease  of the pericardium in this case was not sufficient to produce death,
without some other exciting cause.  There  was no organic disease of the
heart itself.
  The death in this case was produced in my opinion by the dose of medi-
cine, combined with the dropsy of the heart.  There was no organic disease
discovered  sufficient to account for the death.
  Cross-examined. 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.           3
  The post-mortem was conducted by myself, the physicians present were
mere  lookers on.  It was a critical post-mortem, as far as the heart and
brain  were concerned.
  " Did you weigh the heart ?"  No, I did not.
  Did you weigh the fluid ?   No.
  Did you examine any part of the heart with a microscope?  No.
  When you  came  down to  the  pericardium  and found there was fluid
within it, you  opened it I suppose  very  carefully that the amount of fluid
should  be  definitely  ascertained'?  An incision  was made,  much of the
fluid escaped into the cavity of the  chest (!)  .And you call this an accurate,
fair, critical post-mortem examination do  you?  "Well,  I  cannot say. it
was very accurate."
  I do not  think she died of any other disease of the heart, if she had, the
post-mortem would have disclosed it.
  If  she had  been  troubled with fatty degeneration of the heart, it would
have been revealed without a  microscope.
  "Do persons die from angina pectoris and post-mortem examinations fail
to discover any  traces of organic disease V
  " I do not recollect any such cases."
  " What is the reputation of  M. Andral ?"  " He stands high."
  " Does he report such cases ?"   " I do not  know."
  " What caused the accumulation of fluid within the pericardium?"   " The
same inflammation probably that caused the adhesion of the pleura."
  " Are you well acquainted with the Gelseminum ?"  " From the recorded
opinion of others I am, I have  a good knowledge of the drug."
  " Will you please state how it affects the respiration V  (hesitatingly,")
" / do not know.  I have studied the medicine,  but have never used it, and
cannot state the particular organs that are affected by it."
  Dr. Edward Lauderdale  was sworn and  related his recollection of Dr.
Lodge's testimony before him  as coroner.
  Dr. J. M. Allen.  He served as one of the coroner's jury and related
what he remembered of Dr. Lodge's testimony, &c.
  Indy Taylor,  (colored) sworn.  Knew the deceased, was a large heavy
set woman, ate hearty, saw  her the Monday before she died.
  Dr  Zina  Pitcher sworn.  (Allopathic.)  I  have been forty  years in
practice.   I have no practical  knowledge of the Gels.  I know its properties
from the books.   It belongs to that class of narcotics called sedatives.   It
diminishes vitality directly.  It is regarded as a poison.  It has peculiar
effects on the vision, producing blindness.  It acts on the circulation, and
causes great depression of the whole system.  Vegetable poisons act dif-
ferently, some produce stimulation first, and then callapse; others, such
as Helleborus, Tobacco, &c,  produce depression primarily.
  Gelseminum  interferes with the functions of the  heart.  I heard the
testimony of Dr. Barrett, from his statement I  do not think there was suf-
ficient disease to cause  death  independent of  the drug.
  The color of the fluid effused within the pericardium showed that it did
not result from recent inflammation.
  I should doubt whether the  exhibition of a  narcotic such as Gelseminum
would hasten death without there existed organic disease.
  Cross-examined.
  What quantity of Gelseminum will prove dangerous in  ordinary cases 1
I have no information that will justify me in saying.  Unexpected effects
are produced  sometimes.  I  prescribed Veratrum-viride  for Mr.  Van R.
who had gout, it nearly killed him.  It was  with difficulty I could save
him.   It produced frightful prostration, unexpected and unusual. 
4           LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVING S  RECOGNIZED.
  Mr. Lothrop.   " It would have been bad for you if he had died, and Mr.
Harbaugh had been prosecuting attorney."
  Mr. Harbaugh.  " He was not experimenting, if he had been and death
resulted, I should have had him up, sure."
  Dr.  Pitcher—testimony  resumed.    "With skillful physicians  and the
wisest use of remedies, results will happen which could not reasonably be
anticipated.
  If a dose of  Gelseminum was  administered so small as not to produce
the prostration which  follows  its use  in  large doses, would  you  expect
death to result in  so short a time as two  hours ?"  " There is something
not easily explained about it."
  Saml. P. Duffield sworn.  I am an  analytical chemist and have been in
business four years.  I know the Gelseminum botanically.   It is a poison.
Classed as  a nervous sedative.  Produces muscular depression  without
destroying consciousness.
  Chemists test their medicines on rabbits.   Orfila proved  his medicines
upon himself and  also upon animals.
  The eclectics prefer the green root tinctures, but in my opinion the dried
root tincture is the strongest.  This  opinion is purely  theoretical, I have
not used the  drug.  Those who use it most  extensively prefer the green
root tincture.
  Dr. Abraham R. Terry sworn :
  1 am a physician, in practice  thirty  years.  My attention  to the Gelse-
minum was  called in 1836.  I know the plant but am not  acquainted with
it medically.  It was referred to in lectures 1  heard in 1830.  It is classed
as a narcotic poison.  Its exponent would be Digitalis.  They both pro-
duce slow pulse, dilation of pupil, headache, cold extremities, stupor, sweat.
  We  find idiosyncracies in patients  which no  man could tell anything
about previously,  these  make medicines  act unusually and unexpectedly.
A grain or two of Calomel will, in some cases, produce  dangerous saliva-
tion.
  " What produces pericardial  effusion ?"  " General dropsical diathesis,
pericarditis,  rigor mortis.  In  cases of death from  depressing influence
there  is more serum than  usual.  When the  serum has been recently
effused it will be of a dark color and bloody.
  Persons die suddenly  of heart-disease without  having  shown previously
any marked  symptoms  of the  disease.   The diseases  of the heart are
wrapped in mystery.   In angina pectoris there is intense lancinating pain
and great difficulty of breathing, patients having severe attacks will die
suddenly and the post-mortem  will not reveal a single  indication  of any
disease.
  " What, in your opinion, was  the cause  of  death in this case V   " I do
not know, I could not in justice to myself or others say I did know."
  Evidence for prosecution closed.
  Dr. E. M. Hale called, and sworn on the part of the defence, the opening
of the counsel being deferred, by consent, until after the examination of this
witness.
  I am a homoeopathic  physician of Jonesville, Michigan, and have been
in practice fifteen years.  1 am  acquainted with the Gelseminum, and have
made  it a special study, for the past seven years, by practical tests and
scientific inquiry.   I have written several articles respecting it and also a
monograph.
  It has  been used in medicine since 1829, when it was brought to  the
notice of the profession by  Prof. Tully.   No other article in relation to it
appeared for some twenty years.  Its use  was confined to] the  eclectic 
LEGALITY  OF  DRUG  PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.            5
physicians principally until about four or five years ago, when it was tested
by  homoeopathists.   I should  look for information  respecting it to  the
eclectic homoeopathic school.
  "What is the rank it now holds ?"  (Question objected to by the prose-
cutor and objection overruled).  "It holds the  first  rank.   It  is an  un-
rivalled  febrifuge, exceeding  all others, also very  valuable  as a nervine,
and a powerful  anti-spasmodic, ranking as  such with Asafoetida.   These
are its three principal properties.
  When  administered in disease  there  results a general quieting of the
nervous system; in fevers  the heat is  decreased, the excited circulation
lessened, and  perspiration induced.  This  results from moderate  use of
the drug, if carried beyond that point it will, similar to Ipecacuanha, Tartar-
emetic, &c, produce muscular relaxation."
  " What is your opinion in regard to its being a noxious  or  poisonous
agent?"  " It ranks properly with  Valerian, Chloroform and Alcohol.  It
is not sufficiently poisonous to exert  any dangerous  or  deleterious  influ-
ences unless  given in massive quantities.  I have used it in my  practice
every day for the last seven years.   It is  not properly  classed with hazard-
ous or dangerous drugs, such as Opium, Arsenicum, Belladonna, Digitalis,
Stramonium, &c.   To class it in a relative point of  view it would belong
to the second or third series of the group of which Belladonna would be
one.   It  is remotely connected with  it in some  effects.   Valerian is a
little narcotic, Opium a good deal."
  " How large a dose may be  given to healthy persons without  endanger-
ing health  or  life ?" " My experience leads  me to  believe  that it would
be  almost impossible to kill a  person with  the tincture of Gelseminum."*
   " In  what  forms is the Gelseminum administered ?"  " Powder of the
dried root, tincture, fluid extract, essential  extract, solid extract, resinoid
and alkaloid.
   How  is  the tincture  prepared?   (Objected  toby  Mr. Harbaugh.)  "If
the gentleman will tell us of  the properties of the drug we  will hear him,
but we do  not want to know  anything about how the  tincture is prepared
down south, &c."   Mr. Lothrop for  defence   insisted upon  the question.
   Judge  Morrow.—" Mr. Harbaugh, you have  detained us all day listening
to your witnesses, not one of them  had any practical knowledge of the drug
in  question, we have now a gentleman on the stand who is  entitled to be
considered an expert in this matter, he knows all about it, if you please let
us  hear him without interruption.
   Dr. Hale's testimony resumed.
  * Note by Dr. Hale.—This should be qualified by the following reasons:
  1. There is not on record any authentic instance of fatal poisoning  by Gelseminum,
even when so large a quantity as one-half pint of the tincture was drank.
  2. It would be difficult to destroy life, in a person of ordinary health and strength,
with the  Gelseminum, unless the drug was given in repeated doses, and  with an utter
neglect of all rational antidotal means.  A large dose generally causes vomiting, which
expels it before it can be absorbed, but even were  it not expelled, the use of stimulants,
(alcohol, capsicum and galvanism) promptly antidotes,  as witness the case of the deck
hands so treated.
  3. The statement above, may be put down in the following words :—"It would be dif-
ficult to destroy the life of an adult healthy person, with the common tincture of Gel-
seminum, if the most ordinary antidotal means were used in case the  drug induced too
much depression."  The strong alcohol of which the tincture is prepared, would probably
be as fatal in its effects as the drug with which it is saturated.
  In this, I of course do not allude to those strong  preparations of Gelseminum, like  the
fluid extract, essential tincture, or alkaloid, all of which  are so much concentrated as to
render them poisonous by aggregated strength—E. M. Hale. 
6
LEGALITY OF DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.
    " The  tincture is  prepared down south, (by the eclectics,)  by filling a
  whiskey barrel with the green root, whiskey is then poured  over it until it
  is covered.   This is the mode of preparing the common green root saturated
  tincture.  There  are  no measurements or weight  whatever.  Yet it  has  a
  definite  strength because it is  saturated. No  tincture prepared in the
  ordinary way without heat can be stronger than such a saturated tincture.
    The green root tincture is the strongest.  It is supposed that the active
  principle is  volatile,  like  Chloroform.   Those  who gather it are  directed
  not to wash it even, until just before placing it in alcohol.  All the eclectic
  physicians I  have consulted, agree that the dry root is  comparatively if not
  entirely worthless or inert.
    I have used tincture Gelseminum from Dr.  Lodge's Pharmacy for about
  two  years."
    " Do  you  consider  that  Dr. Lodge  has competent  knowledge."   (Mr.
  Harbaugh objected and objection overruled.)
    Dr. Hale  resuming.   " Dr. Lodge's tincture  of Gelseminum is the best
  1 have used.
    Of this saturated tincture a dose of thirty, forty or fifty drops would not
  produce any hurtful or  dangerous effects in ordinary cases.   I have  taken
  twenty-four,  forty-five  and sixty drop  doses.   It  is given by eclectics in
  doses of ten drops up  to one ounce (four hundred and eighty drops), and
 even one and a half ounces or seven hundred and twenty drops."
   'Is there  any  well  authenticated  report of a case of poisoning from the
 Gelseminum to be found ?"   " I cannot find one.
   A.  skilful and prudent physician could administer a dose of thirty, forty
 or nlty drops  without apprehending any hurtful effects."
    What is the practice of proving medicine ?"  " This custom  is not con-
 fined to the homoeopathic school, but is  practised, to some extent by others.
 Uur  custom is to give drugs to healthy persons in  medicinal  doses so as to
 causes ymptoms ; by this method we ascertain their rank, position and cura-
 tive powers in disease.
   Why do you prefer  healthy subjects as provers?   " Because in disease,
 the symptoms of the malady and  the effects of  the medicine are mixed in
 such  confusion that no one could separate them
   Provers' Unions are  established in the different European kingdoms and
 sanctioned by the  governments, and the system of provings is recognized
 by the highest authorities of both schools.
   I was present  at  the post-mortem  examination made by  Dr. Barrett.
 In my opmion the woman died from angina pectoris, or fatty degeneration
 of the heart   from my intimate experience with the Gelseminum and the
 symptoms of  the woman during life, and the post-mortem developments, I
 Sinthfacale"8  Gelseminum had *«?  agency whatever in  producing

   "Does  the  Geiseminum  produce fear?"  " I never knew it to produce
 fear, 11 never causes anxiety, such as that produced  by  Aconite, Digitalis,
 &c.  It rather causes indifference.                               c
   "In angina pectoris there is intense horror, the utmost conceivable anguish, '
 eyes become  fixed, glaring open, the patient will grasp at bystanders "
   Well  suppose  such a case what  would be the appropriate remedy ?"
  The  Gelseminum undoubtedly!  The  dose  should  be  graduated  ac-
 cording to the  age of the patient, and the severity of the  case   In a severe
attack on an adult a teaspoonful might be given with safety.  The Gelse!

be tLmdose        m dl SPaSmS'thG m°re ^ense ^ are *° larger should
  M. Andral made post-mortem examinations in cases of death from  ano-ina 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.           7
pectoris  and found  there was no  organic  lesion whatever, no change  of
structure that was apparent upon an accurate examination."
   Cross-examined.
   " Dropsy of the pericardium is a predisposing cause of angina pectoris."
   " Was not the exciting cause of death the Gelseminum, and did you not
assert this  before the coroner ?"  -" I  stated that it was an indirect cause
of death, but I have since modified my opinion, and  I will state my reasons
for doing  so.   I  have killed  a great many  animals  with  Gelseminum,
rabbits, dogs and  cats, and I have found certain  conditions in all these
animals, invariably, such  being entirely the opposite of those  presented in
the  case of Margaret Washington.  The differences  were these:  In the
lower animals the  heart was  always  relaxed  and  full of blood, the con-
tractility of the heart was destroyed before death took place.   This woman's
heart was contracted firmly, and empty, save only a little shred.   Finding
this I cannot now say that the  Gelseminum had anything  whatever to do
with  causing the woman's death.
   I could not succeed in killing dogs  with the tincture, 1  was obliged  to
use the fluid extract, and it took eight drams of that, to kill a small spaniel.
   The general qualities of this drug have been known for some time, but
its special qualities are not thoroughly understood, and further provings are
necessary."

            Opening for the defence by G. V. N. Lothrop, Esq.

   " Gentlemen  of the jury:—Argument  does  not appear  to be necessary
The evidence both for prosecution and defence, is of  such  a character that
did I not think it might be of some special service to  you and to my client
I should forbear.  I shall content  myself  briefly with showing what is the
present condition of this case."
   Objection by the prosecutor.   *'  It is proper for the gentleman to state the
nature of the defence he intends making, but it is not  proper to  enter into
his argument now."
   Mr. Lothrop.—" The prosecutor appears to be determined to be wrong in
this  case throughout.  It is right for me to show the fallacy of the prosecu-
tion,  I might review the case of the prosecutor and even make my argument
here, if I insisted upon it.
   What is'the  prosecutor's position?   That the defendant committed the
crime of manslaughter in unlawfully killing Margaret Washington.  He
does  not charge any intention to take her life, he does not charge a willful,
but only an  unlawful act.  How unlawful?  To constitute unlawfulness,
the giving of the drug must be accompanied by gross ignorance or gross in-
attention.  The unlawfulness must consist in one or the other or both.   I
intend to  be plain.  You are arbiters and judges of an important question,
and I purpose that you shall distinctly understand the defence made.
   If a drug administered honestly  and with proper purposes, without gross
ignorance or gross  inattention, though death may result, the act is not
criminal.   The  act was a misadventure,  not a crime.   Were it otherwise,
were the prosecutor's  notions the  law of the land,  your most worthy and
accomplished physicians  would be inmates of  your states  prison.  There
is not a physician in the land, of any school of practice, if his business is
extensive, but what has found at  some time that his  measures instead  of
prolonging life,  have hastened death.   Owing  to the  operation  of hidden
causes  which he could not probe or  control, his  medicine has produced
results  which could  not  be expected.  He intended  to save life, unwill-
ingly  he has caused death. 
8           LEGALITY  OF DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.
   Inasmuch as the prosecutor has signally failed to show either ignorance
 or inattention  on the part  of  my  client, I might rest here and say I will
 give no testimony.  In the absence of any proof I am amazed  that  the
 prosecutor is willing to let the case go to the jury at all.  The prosecutor
 has closed without producing a single physician  who could swear within
 his knowledge that the Gelseminum  is a  poison and had  produced death.
 No evidence  as to what  dose will  produce fatal  results,  without  any
 evidence that it has ever produced death in any instance.   The prosecutor.
 failing to make any satisfactory case by his evidence, should abandon it at
 once.
  You  see the  ground for my  absolute  amazement.  There are" in  the
 United  States probably over a thousand  physicians who are acquainted
 with this  drug Gelseminum, yet  the prosecutor has failed to put one of
 them upon the stand.  Why'?   Because there cannot be  found one physi-
 cian who uses this drug, and  is well  acquainted with  its properties, that
 would be willing to testify that it caused the death of the woman.
  Mr. Harbaugh.—The gentleman is arguing the case.
  Judge Morrow.—It is customary simply to state what the defence intends
 proving, although the remarks of Mr. Lothrop  are not exactly an argument.
  Mr. Lothrop continuing.—Is it not right for  me to show fully, clearly and
 certainly, the complete deficiency of the prosecutor's case?
  It is incumbent  upon the prosecution to  establish definitely that the de-
 fendant acted with gross ignorance and carelessness, and yet they have not
 given you  a scintilla of proof to make it out.  He starts out with the
 assertion of the poisonous character of the drug, and then produces no case
 of poisoning  or  proof of its noxious  qualities, or a particle of testimony
 showing recklessness in its administration.  In my humble judgment, the
 prosecutor is morally bound to abandon the  case ; let  him state honestly
that he  has been misled; that my client has  been unjustly accused.   He
 should be the foremost to step forward to justify him.
  The defendant  is a  homoeopathist.  Hahnemann the  founder of the
 system  of homoeopathy, introduced the  practice  of proving medicines  on
healthy  persons.   Whatever may have  been  his merits, he is now recog-
nized as having been a great and original thinker, a man of great learning
 and philosophical  mind.  His teaching  was, that a medicine, or agent ad-
 ministered  to  a person in  health would produce symptoms similar to the
 disease  which it was appropriate to cure.  The principle lies at the founda-
tion of the new practice.  To carry it out, provings are resorted to.   Drugs
 are administered to  healthy persons, their effects carefully watched and
 recorded.   Upon knowledge thus obtained, the drugs are  prescribed to the
 sick.  This is a  philosophical course.   If  drugs are given to the diseased
the effects are confounded with those of the malady.  Dr.  Pitcher  has told
 you that he tests  his medicines on his patients.   We admired his candor
 and J  have personally, the  deepest respect for him, but in this matter he
 cannot be right.  When the drugs  are administered to the sick, the danger
is  two-fold; first, the  effects  are  mixed with those of the disease, and
second,  when he has discovered that he has given the wrong remedy, it
 may be  too late to  give the  right one.  In Europe the proving of medicines
is  done under governmental sanction, in  this country it is left to private
hands.
  The Gelseminum,  or yellow  Jessamine,  is a plant growing wild all over
the southern states, it is not found  I believe' in Europe.   It may have been
growing from the beginning of the  world, but  its value  as a medical agent
was only discovered recently.  Accident,  that great resource of medicine,
 brought the Gelseminum into use. The  slave of a southern planter ga- 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.           9
thered the root by mistake, it was administered to his master and cured a
severe fever.   The  eclectics adopted it.  After a time it was tested and
introduced by the homoeopathists.  They have proved it, and are still test-
ing it.  The prosecutor thinks that the profession are already well enough
acquainted with it.   Instead of this, those who know the most about it, tell
us that the subject is far  from being exhausted.   What folly to think that
our knowledge of any subject can be  exhausted.  We may be vain enough
to think we know all, but to-morrow  a man Will rise and put to shame  our
idle conceits, he  will show us something we failed to see.
  A few  years ago  the defendant came to this  city, he was a  regularly
bred  student of  medicine,  and  zealous  for the  advancement of his pro-
fession.   In addition to his practice he has kept a pharmacy where he pre-
pares and dispenses medicines  to his professional  friends, and  we shall
show you that he is a  physician of good standing, and  also  that he  has
competent knowledge as a pharmaceutist.  In the pursuit of his legitimate
business he prepares a tincture of the Gelseminum from the dried root, the
demand for the tincture being greater  than could be supplied from the green
root, on account  of our national trouble cutting  off the southern supply.
This tincture he  administers to himself, to several of his children and to the
colored servant.. The  tincture was  prepared  at the ordinary temperature
with dilute alcohol.
  We shall prove :
   1. That the Gelseminum is a well known and recognized  medical agent,
and not a poison  in the proper sense of that term.  That it is used in doses
as large as one hundred drops without producing painful or  hurtful effects,
We have  no record of any fatal case of poisoning, but if given in massive
quantities, the  patient is  found to sink away into a profound stupor of in-
sensibility, and present nothing of the pain, anxiety  and distress, that was
present in this case.
  2. That it would  not be possible for so small a quantity of Gelseminum
to produce death.
  3. That the woman  died from angina pectoris, a disease characterized
by excessive anguish, labored respiration and sudden termination in death.
  When  we establish  these  things  it will be shown  how unjustly and
wrongfully the charge of  manslaughter is made against Dr.  Lodge.  If he
were a quack he might desire this  prosecution  as  an  advertisement,  but
as  an educated  physician, pursuing that  practice  which is the best  ac-
cording to  his enlightened  convictions, the  trial is necessarily painful.
Though he will  most certainly go out of  this hall completely justified in
the opinion of every honorable man,  yet the idea of  such a  trial as this is
unpleasant.  It is not  of his choosing, he  is  accused  and must defend.
He will have, however, a  triumphant vindication, he will be justified most
completely and certainly "
  Dr.  Joseph A. Albertson sworn.   "I  am a  practitioner  of medicine of
Detroit.   I  saw  the colored woman  before she died.   Dr. Lodge told me
he had given her about thirty-five drops of the tincture Gelseminum at five
o'clock.   About seven she came into his room hurriedly, exhibiting intense
anguish, great fear and labored respiration.  She had a severe suffocative
spasm, struggled  on to  the floor, and then became insensible.  I learned
these particulars on my  arrival.  I  found her lying upon  the  floor,  ex-
tremities cold;  no perceptible pulse; eyes staring; jaws rigid;  there was
a slow catching respiration for a few minutes.  She died within ten minutes
after I reached the room.
  I am acquainted with the Gelseminum and do not think that it is a  poison
in the ordinary acceptation of that term.  I have given two drams to a 
10          LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.

patient during twenty-four hours, and I  believe that a dose of forty or fifty
drops could be given without apprehending any danger."
  "What is Dr. Lodge's reputation for skill and competency?"
  Question objected to by Mr.  Harbaugh, and objection overruled.
  Ans.   " I should say without hesitation, that  he has, by common consent,
a place in the front rank of the homoeopaths of  Michigan."
  Depositions read.—Dr. Charles J.  Hempel.   " I am acquainted with the
Gelseminum.  It is not mentioned in any work on Toxicology as a poison.
When used by hotnoeopathists, it is  given in  comparatively small doses.
The allopathists  and  eclectics use it in larger quantities.  The  smallest
dose is about fifteen drops of the tincture,  but the ordinary or normal dose
is fifty or sixty  drops, the dose is increased up to as high as 240 drops.
In my knowledge, professional or practical, I have never  known a dose
from 15 to  240 drops  to do the slightest injury, or in  any manner produce
any evil or  deleterious effects.   The  dose of 240 drops may produce tem-
porary medicinal effects, but nothing permanently injurious to health or life."
  " State the theory and practice of the  homoeopathic school in respect to
the provings of medicines?"
  "It is a fundamental principle of the homoeopathic practice, that a drug in
order to cure a  disease  must be capable of  producing- an  analagous  or
similar train of symptoms in healthy persons.  This rule makes it neces-
sary to prove on  healthy persons the effect of medicines before using them
as medicinal or remedial agents.   This is called '" proving" medicines.   In
proving  drugs we do not use them necessarily in  small doses.   Some phy-
sicians commence with small doses.  In proving  we  use material  doses
varying  from  the  smallest dose up to the largest  consistent  with safety.
The physician starting with a  general knowledge of the agent, whether it
is a dangerous, a  powerful or a mild  medicinal agent, he graduates in his
provings the size of the dose  accordingly, and then carefully observes or
studies the  effect  produced both in their nature and in the organs affected,
and their order chronologically.  In the  opinion of eminent physicians and
medical schools, this practice of  proving medicines by  administering them
to well persons is considered legitimate and proper.  A physician can only
know the effects of medicines by administering them to either sick or well
persons.   As a general rule, you cannot judge  what effect a medicine will
produce on the human system from  administering it to one of the lower
animals.   It would not be safe to rely upon  this.  The method of proving
medicines just related is recommended by  all the modern professors  or
practitioners  of  medicine of distinction.  Pereira, Trousseau, Sundelin,
Hebra, Parkinje, Kissel and all the eminent  authorities of the age approve
and practice this  method.  We claim that it is an application to medicine
of the Baconian method of induction.   In Europe there are societies known
as " provers' unions."   They have by-laws, and are under the direct sanc-
tion and control of the governments.   The most eminent physicians belono-
to these societies.
  In my opinion  as a medical man acquainted with the properties of Gel-
seminum, I think it would be perfectly  safe  and  prudent to  administer
thirty-five or forty drops of it to an adult female.   In my judgment, no evil
or deleterious effects could rationally be anticipated to result from such a
dose.  In such a  case, if death soon after ensued with apoplectic symptoms,
I should not say the death was produced by the dose.  I should say further,
and with the highest medical certainty, that death could not be produced by
such a dose.   If. death should occur soon after the administration of such
a dose, it must be accounted for on some basis entirely different from Gel-
seminum.  *  *  *  *   In experimenting with poisons, the prover would 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.          11
  not experiment upon strangers.   Prudence would  require that a physician
  should inquire into the constitution, habits of life, &c, of the person, before
  he experimented upon  him or her by giving them poisonous drugs."
    Dr. John King, (Eclectic. Professor and author, Cincinnati).
    "In the  ordinary acceptation of the term, I do not  consider it (the Gel-
 , seminum) as a poisonous drug at all, or a dangerous one.   *   *  *   I
  have in my own practice given it in many cases in  doses of a tablespoonful
  every hour, continued for several hours and with beneficial results.
    Dr. H. H  Hill:  In  the summer of 1853, late in June or early in July,
  I had  five barrels  of tincture of Gelseminum shipped from  Vicksburg,
  Mississippi.  The boat grounded on a sand bar on  the Ohio river near
  night.   I happened to  see the barrels on  deck, they having been taken out
  of the  hole in shifting freight.   I requested the mate to have the barrels
  lowered again, as they contained  medicine, and it was not safe  in case the
  hands should get at them.  The next  morning another boat made its ap-
  pearance, and the captain told us we had better get aboard that boat as it
  was of light draught.   As we were getting aboard, I heard two physicians
  say to the captain that some of his men had been drinking alcohol or some
  poison, and two or three of them were  about dead.  They told the captain
  to give  them  an emetic.   Being  well convinced what they had been drink-
  ing, I told  him not to  do so, as  they were already  too much relaxed, and
  that they  needed stimulants.  During the night they  had opened a barrel
  and drawn a  bucket full, as I learned from the men, and had drank it from
  tin cups, it was supposed from  half a pint to a pint each.  They looked
  very much like dead men, their eyes were  closed;  circulation very feeble ;
  no pulse perceptible ; and breathing so low that it could hardly be perceived
  at all.   Two of the men were taken on board the other boat and the  other
  three were left.  I went up the  river  with the two men and  gave  them
  stimulants, and  in less than two  hours they were able to walk.   They re-
  covered. When I got to Louisville, there was a statement in the Louisville
  Journal that it was supposed that the three men who were left behind were
  dead, they having been left in an  apparently dying  condition.  Some three
  days afterwards the boat got  up, and  another  statement appeared  in the
  paper that stimulants had been given to them and that they had  recovered.''''
     Dr. Z. Freeman.—'"I am acquainted with the properties of Gelseminum.
  It is what is called a nervine and a relaxant.  It relaxes the muscular fibre
  of the  system and the  contractile tissue, and quiets nervous  irritability
  without producing narcotic effects.  It is  also in large doses a sedative.   A
  person in ordinary health might take half a  drachm  two or three times a
  day without injury: that is, the effects of weakness, prostration, ringing in
  the ears, dimness of vision, &c, would  be transient and pass away iu a few
  hours."
    Dr. James  S. Douglas, of Milwaukie.—"Is acquainted with the  Gelse-
  minum. Its known properties do not rank  it as  poisonous or dangerous.
  It is given  in doses of  40, 50, 60 and 100 drops without any observed hurt-
  ful effects.   The method  of proving drugs by the  homoeopathic school  of
  medicine, is to administer the drug to bo proved  to persons of  apparent
  health in varied dose and strength, in order to produce upon the subject all
  the changes  and modifications  of sensations  and functions, that is all the
  symptoms  which the drug  is capable of producing, compatible  with the
  safety and  well-being of the subject, and  carefully noting all these changes
  or symptoms.  One dose is allowed time to exhaust  its action before another
  is given. As drugs  are found to produce  different effects in  large and small
  doses, in the concentrated tinctures and the different potencies and dilutions,
•  a drug  is not fully  "proved,"  in other  words, all its effects  ascertained. 
12          LEGALITY  OF DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.
until it has been proved in these various forms.   Again, as drugs produce
modified  or  different effects upon different sexes, ages, temperaments, and
constitutions, a drug is not  fully "proved," or all  its modified effects ascer-
tained, until it has been proved by or upon the two sexes, and  all ages, con-
stitutions, and temperaments.  The principle upon which such provings are
made is  based upon the demonstrated fact, that drugs  in comparatively
small doses cure in  the most direct, safe, and perfect manner diseases cha-
racterized by similar symptoms  to  those produced  on the healthy by the
same drugs in comparatively larger doses.  It follows that, in order to ad-
minister drugs scientifically or successfully, we must fully understand what
symptoms they produce on the healthy.  Hence the necessity of provings."
  Dr. John Ellis.—"In the school of medicine to which I belong drugs are
given to the  healthy for the sake of ascertaining  the symptoms which they
cause, in order that the physician  may know when to  give  them for the
relief of the sick.   Such " provings," as  they are called, are regarded  of
vast moment to  the welfare of the community, and those who engage  in
making them are regarded as real benefactors of our race.  *  *   *   *
The more violent symptoms are  developed by giving concentrated tinctures
and large doses of strong  preparations,  and this is important.  It  could
never have been known, that Veratrum, or white Hellebore and Arsenic are
the chief remedies for  the cholera, if these remedies had never been taken
in dose3  sufficient to  cause vomiting,  diarrhoea,  cramps, prostration, and
other symptoms  resembling cholera.  It  is also very important to obtain
the less violent symptoms which an article is capable of causing, as they are
often more characteristic of the particular drug  than the severe symptoms.
This is accomplished  by giving the potencies.   The  purposes which are
accomplished by both modes are the formation of a materia medica upon a
scientific  basis, which enables the physician to cure the sick with a  greater
degree of certainty  and safety than before such provings were instituted,
and also enables the physician to distinguish between the symptoms caused
by disease and those caused by  his remedy. By the aid of  the provings
already made, we are able to treat the cholera, pneumonia, all febrile and
inflammatory diseases,  and in fact, all diseases with a  success unknown
before such  provings were made; and what is very important, we are able
generally to cu*e with  doses so small as to cause no unpleasant symptoms,
and leave no troublesome effects  behind.  In fact,  the system of drug
proving is among the  most useful and important discoveries  ever made in
medicine."
  Dr. John F. Gray.—"All drugs are injurious to health,—all are poisonous.
I have not known of death being caused  by Gelseminum. The methods of
proving the virtues of drugs for their scientific  use as  remedies are two:
First, with large doses, such as are commonly given in the allopathic prac-
tice ; and second, with fractions of such doses.   The object to be attained
by the first method  is the disclosure of the efforts which a healthy system
would  make to expel the noxious agent, such as vomiting, purging, sweat-
ing, &c.,  .fee, with all  their concomitant  states of body and  mind, with a
view to the speedy and safe removal of similar sufferings when they arise
from other causes.   This class of provings I call the revolutionary, as dis-
tinguished from the second,  which is called the specific.   The purpose
answered by the second, which is the giving of fractions and  diluted  forms
of the doses used in the common  practice, is the disclosure  of the latent
healing powers of drugs or medicaments which very seldom  appear in the
system, overwhelmed by the revolutionary  doses.  By the tests made with
doses so small as not to awaken a powerful reaction for their expulsion, a
registration  of the healing virtues of drugs is attained which  is indispensa- 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG  PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.          13
ble for the rational treatment of chronic diseases.  The first kind of trials
relates more to the cure of acute and immediately dangerous maladies, and
the second, as said, to the cure of inveterate and constitutional taints. My
opinion is, that the provings  for the first class of effects may be of Gelse-
minum, as of every other  drug, in doses of the  size commonly used in the
practice of the various branches of allopathy.   By " provings," when care-
fully and  fully made in both modes, the materials  for healing disease are
greatly enriched;  for  the  experience of all ages confirms the  maxim  of
homoeopathy, and  without  just such provings the discovery of the health
restoring analogy  between the powers of a drug and the cause of a  disease
were nearly impossible in any case, and  absolutely so in a vast majority of
human maladies."

             David  E. Harbaugh, Esq., for the Prosecution.
   Gentlemen of the  Jury: you have been apprized of  the.character of the
offence with which the defendant stands charged,—manslaughter.   This is
quite different from that homicide which is generally denominated murder.
In that, you know, there must  be an evident intention to take life.   Man-
slaughter may result from  an act which is itself unlawful, or from a lawful
act done in an improper manner and without due caution.  You  are called
upon to make two inquiries: first, as  to  the killing of the woman  by the
defendant; second, are there any circumstances showing that the  killing
was justifiable or excusable.
   If a person does an act which accelerates the death of another, it is man-
slaughter.  A man may be laboring under an organic affection of the heart,
so that in all  probability  he would die  in twenty-four hours, and  by the
unlawful act of another he is slain, it is manslaughter.  You  comprehend
it,—you understand it.  The same  force that would kill a diseased  man
would  not injure a robust or  strong man.
   It is fair to presume, that if this woman had not taken the Gelseminum,
she would have been alive  and well to-day.  There  is no other  way of
satisfactorily accounting for  this woman's death.  The  law  attributes great
importance to life; government is framed for its protection; when death
occurs in an unusual manner, it is  the  duty of the  officers of the state to
inquire in what manner and by what means that life was lost to the country.
If there is suspicion of fraud and violence, an investigation is properly
called for.
   Margaret Washington, a colored woman of twenty-five or thirty years of
age, robust in form, of good health, pursuing her ordinary avocation on the
morning of her death, never complaining, never asking for medicine;  on the
15th of January, 1862, at five, p. m., was in apparent health, in possession
of her physical abilities, the Gelseminum was administered to her  by Dr.
Lodge : at seven o'clock she  was dead!   Did that kill  her 1  Are you not
satisfied in your minds that that killed her?
   In what way was  Dr.  Lodge justified or excused in giving the  Gelse-
minum  to  that woman ?   He says  it was given to prove its properties.
That is an after thought.   He knew all the effects of the drug,  and he gave
it merely to test the  strength of the tincture made  from the dry  root.  He
took the medicine  himself, and gave it to his children,  and the effects pro-
duced on them'showed him that the dried root could not be inert.   It was
unnecessary then  for him  to experiment upon the deceased  at  all, and it
was rash, reckless, and careless to give her forty or fifty drops of the strong
tincture he had  prepared,  and which  acted so powerfully  on  himself and
family.  Had  he any right to do so ?  If fatal consequences resulted, is he
not responsible ? 
14         LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.

  Did  she die from the Gelseminum?   There is something extraordinary
about this;  the defendant has changed his theory, an entirely different
cause of death  is ascribed now.   Before the coroner it Avas dropsy of the
heart and Gelseminum, now it  is  an gin'cms  (!) pectoris.   Why has he
changed it?   The testimony is conclusive and  overwhelming, that the Gel-
seminum was the immediate cause of death, and nothing else.
  We say that  Dr. Lodge's act is inexcusable and  unjustifiable.  Had not
the woman  taken  the drug she would have  been alive at this moment.
Look at the circumstances and investigate them.  If it caused^ death, he is
guilty; he cannot be excused or justified; it was an unlawful killing.

                Charles P. Crosby, Esq., for the Defence.

  The highest object of judicial investigation is the ascertainment of truth.
Courts are organized for this purpose.   It is this which has called us here,
and you.  gentlemen, have the highest duty to perform in deciding as to the
truth in the present case.
  The  defendant, Dr. Lodge, is  charged with  manslaughter.  I  shall not
review all the testimony.  The prosecutor assumes, that the drug adminis-
tered was a poison, and that  there was  inattention and gross neglect in its
use.  The evidence has shown beyond  any question, that  the  dose which
was  given Margaret Washington never yet caused death in  a single in-
stance.  Doses  larger are given in sickness, and Drs. Ellis, Gray, Hempel,
Douglas,  King, Hill, Freeman, Hale, and Albertson all testify that such a
quantity is perfectly safe for any one in  health.
  The  prosecutor tells you, that Dr. Lodge's statement that  he gave the
drug for a "proving," was "an after thought."   It is a little singular, that
such a charge should be  made when  the facts show conclusively, that the
drug was given, not* idly, or wantonly, but  for a purpose, and that purpose
the testing of  its  qualities,—in other  words,  "proving"  it.    What are
provings?  Simply  discovering by  actual  experiment Avhat effects drugs
produce on the human constitution, so as to obtain  knowledge to guide in
their administration in disease.   The Gelseminum has  been proved, but no
physician can say he has  yet ascertained  all the properties of this drug.
Every homoeopathic  physician who has attained any eminence in his pro-
fession is interested in these provings;  the most skillful of them are engaged
in these provings every day.  And it is right and proper, that medicines
should be thus tested upon  persons of  all  ages and of both sexes, and of
all conditions.  There are different susceptibilities  in relation to the action
of drugs in different persons, and it is necessary to test the same medicine
on a great number and variety of persons, and not trust or rely upon those
made upon any one individual.  The  objection  of the  prosecutor, that
proving was not necessary because the Doctor already  knew the properties
of the drug, is extremely fallacious.
   The prosecutor took up this case with the assumption, that all provings
of drugs or poisons is unlawful,—that  the  Doctor  had no right to give a
drug or  poison to  a healthy person.   Twenty  years  ago, if a man had
stated  that he  could send a message  across the continent by lightning, he
would have been deemed insane.  Galileo was confined in the inquisition
because he taught that the earth revolved on its axis.  In London now the
street railways of G. F. Train are indicted as a nuisance.   'Tis needless to
multiply instances, the history of the  world shows us  that the pioneers of
science have been the scorn and  derision of the people they served.   It has
been so in the past, it is so now.  A man's  cotemporaries do not recognize
his worth or services.  Drs. Barrett, Lauderdale, Pitcher, and others, they 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.
15
do not prove medicines on  healthy persons.  They know all about medi-
cines without thus testing them.  "What have they been able  to tell you
about the Gelseminum ?  As to the rival schools I care but little, I have a
predilection for the physician  that cures me. and care not whether he uses
Yellow Dock or Yellow Jessamine.   But I must accord to those who enter
upon  the laborious and  self-sacrificing  work of proving  drugs a word of
praise:  I consider, that  the one who proves a drug for the purpose ot
becoming better able to relieve suffering  and  cure disease, is actuated by
•one of the holiest and loftiest purposes that can actuate a  human being.
   The prosecutor- tells you, that a physician is liable if he administers any-
thing that accelerates death.   To see  the absurdity of this you have but to
recollect the testimony of Dr. Pitcher.  He is called to  the bedside of Mr.
Van R., who has gout, he prescribes a  medicine which acted in an extra-
ordinary manner and  nearly produced  death.  Suppose  that it bad killed
him ?   Would  it not be outrageous  to say he would have been guilty ot
manslaughter?  It is utterly ridiculous  to  state, that  a mednal man is
responsible for every mistake  be may make.  If a physician does all in his
power, acts with ordinary skill and prudence, he is not responsible though
death may result.                                             ,   c ,.
   But we  do  not  admit that the Gelseminum  caused  the death  ot this
woman. Our witnesses prove that it did not, and the prosecutor's witnesses
do not testify, that it was the cause of death.  Dr. Pitcher says in regard to
 Gelseminum:  << I know  nothing  about it."  Dr. Terry thinks  the  post-
mortem of  Dr. Barrett was no examination at all, and when asked what in
his opinion caused Margaret Washington's death, said  finally :   ' Ldo not
 know." Well,  I do not know,—you  do  not  know.  W e  bring the best
 scientific knowledge to bear  on the  subject, we  bring the evidence of the
 most learned men, and those who are well  acquainted with the Gelseminum,
 and these testify that the drug did  not cause death.
   The Prosecutor  rings the changes  on  Dr. Hale, having  modified his
 opinion. Dr. Hale acknowledged  frankly, that he has changed  his views,
 and gave the very best reasons for bis change; these were stated fully and
 frankly.  And  Dr. Hale was right in doing so.  I believe the woman died
 of angina pectoris,—that terrible disease that kills in an hour, and leaves no
 sien of its fatal course, no change of  structure, and such a death,  of all
 others the  most unlike what we must suppose death by Gelseminum would
 be    The fact stated by Dr. Hale, that in the animals killed by Gelseminum
 the heart was always relaxed, and  that in  the case of Margaret Washington
 the heart was firmly contracted, is one  of  the most conclusive facts that we
 can present showing that the woman did  not die in consequence of the ad-
 ministration of the drug by Dr. Lodge.   And Dr. Hale's  testimony must
 have more weight than all the witnesses  of the prosecution, they were all
 ignorant of the drug; Dr. Hale is  thoroughly posted up m regard to  all its
 properties, and is the author  of a.book  devoted torts consideration
   The  Prosecutor will  have it, that the  Gelsemmum is a very dangerous
 and poisonous drug.  You  will recollect the testimony of Dr. Hill in rela-
 tion to the Mississippi deck hands, they tapped  the barrels containing satu-.
 rated green root tincture of Gelseminum, drank it in quantities of halt a.pint
 and more, and yet every one recovered.   How poisonous must be thirty or
 forty drops.  Could the Gelseminum  have hastened her death ?   Dr. Barrett
 testifies distinctly, that there was  no organic disease of  the heart, and Drs.
 Pitcher and Terry both say, that  unless there existed organic disease, such
 dose of Gelseminum  could not have accelerated her death.  There is no
 danger in  giving the Gelseminum  in ordinary doses to persons in' apparent
 health  This woman was to all appearance well, had no disease that could 
16          LEGALITY  OF DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.
be discovered; she was a proper subject for the proving, and the giving of
it was accompanied by no circumstances  showing the slightest inattention
or carelessness.
  I intended to say but little, because the case requires no labored argu-
ment.  If you take into consideration the  facts  and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the drug, the apparent health of the woman, the Doctor's
position and knowledge, and  the acknowledged benefit  and legality of
proving drugs, you must exonerate him fully.  There is nothing  about the
case which would justify you in giving a verdict against  Dr. Lodge.   Dr.
Lodge has been driven into this court by  the prosecution.  The Prosecutor
has told you he has no desire  to convict the defendant, he is merely per-
forming a legal duty.  What we have to contend  with here is an evil of the
most fearful character—ignorance.  This  is at the bottom of the whole pro-
secution.   If proper steps had been taken in the  commencement of the
case, and information sought for, there would have been no trial here.  _ As
to the result I have no fear: I  should be untrue to myself,  to the principles
of truth and justice, if I  believed for a moment  in the possibility that you
can render a verdict of guilty.   It would be a rank infamy and shame.  I
leave the case to you, expecting at your  hands a vindication  of Dr. Lodge
for his practice as a man and as a physician.
  G. V. N. Lothrop, Esq.—Were  it my object  to  obtain for Dr. Lodge
merely a legal discharge, my office would  be  a  very  easy one.  The law
presumes innocence until guilt  is proven, and as the prosecution has utterly
failed to make out a case, he must receive  an  acquittal.  That  he is to be
discharged was determined before I stood upon  my feet.   But  Dr. Lodge
looks for a complete justification, and he shall not look in  vain for so  poor
a boon at my hands.  Not a medical justification ; were this necessary Dr.
Lodge would enter upon it himself, and he  would do it  more amply;  and,
in the forum of medicine, in the world, he will vindicate himself fully.  That
justification is now passing, and Avill give this case an unlooked-for impor-
tance.  It may hand down to posterity some names which  would otherwise
pass into oblivion, as the precious amber preserves a few flies.
  The prosecution has made no case whatever,—absolutely no case.   No
lawyer will pretend to say, that the prosecution has made  a case which we
can rightfully be called upon to  defend.   And when the gentleman so
utterly failed to prove  anything against my client, I looked to him for the
vindication which he should have given.   In  England, in a case reported
by Adolphus and Baron (Rex v. Van Butchel, 3 Car and Payne, 629), where
the accused, a  medical man,  was charged with manslaughter, the  facts
showed a case where physicians might differ.  Baron Hallock inquired of
the prosecutor (Adolphus): " Do you think you can carry the case ?"   He
replied: ';1 do not think so."  The case was stopped—the judge saying,
that he was afraid to allow the case to go to the jury, as the idea might
become prevalent, that a regularly educated medical practitioner was liable
to prosecution whenever an operation failed.
  In another case Lord Ellenborough decided that a medical man  cannot
be charged with manslaughter, unless he has been  criminally inattentive.
Would it not be most extraordinary that the members  of a profession deal-
ing with that wonderfnl being, man, should be responsible  for more  than
the exercise of competent skill  and reasonable attention ?   Yet in the face
of these legal decisions, at this day, at this hour,the  prosecutor  dares to
drag a skillful physician into court without  one  particle of proof  that he
has been guilty of any offence.  No proof, whatever,  that the drug given
could or did cause death in this instance.   That  such a case as this should
go to  a jury at all, shows the frailty and  imperfection of our laws.   Let us 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.          17
look at the legal points in this case.  What is the prosecution bound to do ?
To  establish  guilt, he  must prove:  1.  That death resulted from  the  ad-
ministration  of the drug.  2.  That in its administration he showed gross
ignorance, and  criminal  inattention.  They must prove the  death, trace it
to the act of the accused, and then show that that act was not in itself in-
nocent.   Have they done so ?
  The gentleman when he moved in this prosecution, did it on the ground
that the  defendant's act was unlawful, that it was unlawful to administer
drugs to healthy persons for the purpose of ascertaining their effects upon
the constitution.  That position is not taken now.  It is abandoned.
  The prosecutor.  " The question is not involved."
  Mr. Lothrop.  It is, directly and materially.   The nature, the quality of
an  act is always  in question.   It is important  that it  be distinctly settled
not only that provings are lawful, but that they are at the foundation of all
rational medicine.  Not homoeopathy, allopathy or eclecticism, but medicine
in the broadest, widest and most beneficient sense.
  The prosecutor has not produced a medical witness who  has testified
that he is .well acquainted with the Gelseminum, he could  haveproduced
 such evidence easily, there are over a thousand physicians using it, not one
 of  them called.   Why?  I repeat they dared  not.  They_ could not have
 produced such a witness without,  at the same  time showing that the  Gel-
 seminum did not and  could not have caused the death of this woman.^  Is
 the prosecutor then permitted, in  the  spirit of the law, to go to  the jury
 with such  evidence, or rather without  any evidence.  There is  one physi-
 cian, however, who did  give an opinion that the  Gelseminum had been a
 cause of death.   Who  gave  if?   Dr. Charles II. Barrett.  I trust the
 gentleman is here.  Was he  warranted in giving any such opinion ?  On
 what grounds?  "In  my opinion," said Dr. Barrett, "the medicine com-
 bined with the dropsy of the heart  produced death."   Now  on what sort  of
 foundation  does  this  young physician  give such  positive testimony.  He
 does not give it hesitatingly, no bashfulness about it, he walks up to it and
 says it caused death.  Who is Dr. Chas. H. Barrett?   A young physician
 who has been practising medicine, he  tells you for five years.   The  pro-
 secutor  also examined  Dr. Pitcher, a practitioner of forty years'  standing,
 also Dr. Terry, who has been practising nearly as long.  I need not refer
. to  the reputation of these gentlemen, you know how deservedly high it  is,
 and what  do they say ?  Does Dr. Pitcher tell you he is  satisfied that it
 caused the death  of the woman, No, and Dr. Terry says with frankness, '•' I
 do not know."  Dr. Barrett had no such hesitation.  " Fools rush in where
 angels fear to  tread."
    What sort of  a post-mortem examination did he make.  A person dies
 suddenly,  he is called upon in  his professional capacity to make the post-
 mortem, he  is told that there will doubtless be  found trouble about the
 heart.   What does he do;—after  going through  the brain, he looks at the
 stomach, then the pleura and  now afterwards the heart,  then he comes
 down to the  pericardium and  finds  by palpation  that  there was  fluid
 within ; he opened it, of course, very carefully and poured out the fluid in a
 suitable vessel for measurement.   No such thing 1  He thrusts  in his knife
 and lets the fluid escape.   Now he tells you there were about three ounces
 of serum  there.  Hew does he  know?  "Guesses."  He guesses at  it!
 yet prepared to give positive testimony.
    Then as regards his knowledge of the Gelseminum.  He says it was the
 cause of death, yet he does not tell you that he ever knew  it to act fatally,
 he does not tell you of a single fatal case of poisoning with the Gelseminum.
 He cannot tell you what organs of the  body are affected by the drug, yet it 
18          LEGALITY  OF DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.
caused, in his opinion, death here.  What is such an  opinion worth?  It is
simply worthless.  And that a man  should  pretend to give such an opinion
in an important case, without any accurate  knowledge whatever, is wicked
and atrocious.  In this  case a physician's reputation and liberty is involved.
The happiness of  him and his family depends upon it.  Should not such an
investigation be entered upon with some sense of responsibility, and yet he
makes  an examination  as was properly estimated by Dr. Terry, when he
told  you  it was "not  worth a single fig."   I shall do this  young  man a
service if- I teach him, that before he attempts  to give a positive opinion
he shall give the matter careful examination and study.
  It is not left for me to utterly confute  Dr. Barrett.  The very first phy-
sician the prosecutor called, after Dr. Barrett left the stand, not only de-
stroyed  his testimony, but buries him professionally.  And Dr. Barrett's
testimony is all the prosecution has to rest their case upon, with a post-mortem
examination "not worth a fig."  Dr. Barrett testifies there was no organic
disease of the heart, and Dr. Pitcher tells you that in the absence of organic
disease the Gelseminum could not accelerate death.   Where is Dr. Barrett?
Safe beneath and beyond all scientific and reasonable criticism.  Dr. Pitcher
leaves the case thus, the Gelseminum could have had no injurious effects.
Dr. Terry agrees with Dr. Pitcher and not with Dr. Barrett.   Dr. Barrett's
testimony is invalidated.   1. He has given us this insufficient post-mortem
examination.   2. He has no knowledge of the drug.   3. His testimony and
opinion is contradicted by Dr. Pitcher and Dr. Terry.
  The  prosecution has  utterly failed.  They start out with the charge of
gross carelessness and  rashness, and have failed to prove  anything re-
sembling it.   They are bound to show gross ignorance or criminal inatten-
tion, they have not proved either.   They have not attempted to show igno-
rance.   He has been but three  or  four years in the  discharge of his pro-
fessional duties here, but thirteen  years ago the professors of a Medical
College testified  to his competence, he is known  as an intelligent and com-
petent  physician, no man has dared to impeach his knowledge, and  for in-
dustry,  intelligence  and character he ranks high  with his  professional
brethren.
  The  prosecutor charges  rashness.   In what?   What were  the  circum-
stances showing rashness ?   The prosecution is dumb. They have nothing
to prove  which shows  rashness or carelessness.  A drug, which from its
nature is  not  dangerous, is  given in an ordinary dose, and not a man has
testified that the act of thus giving it was rash.
  The prosecutor has failed to prove that the death was caused by the drug,
and failed to  show any imprudence in its use.  Were a mere  acquittal re-
quired I should stop here, but I propose to brush away some of these cobwebs.
The mountains of prejudice and ignorance are slippery.
  A physician attempts to prove a  drug.   The  subject of the proving dies
suddenly.  He is charged with killing her. In such a case, the very first
thing which a fair man would have done, would be to call upon those who
have been for the past ten  years in  daily  use of it.   And a jury in such a
case have a right to say to the prosecutor: As you have not brought us
the testimony  of any physician who has dealt with the drug you can expect
nothing  from  us.  Evidence concerning the properties of the drug exist,
you could have brought it, you did not."
  I am not here  to procure an  acquittal.  Had I  purposed to secure that
only, Dr. Lodge would have said, " Sir, you are no adequate counsel for me,
I must be justified after your forms  in the fullest manner,  I  have  been  a
practitioner in good standing for thirteen years,  I claim that I have in this
very matter performed a conscientious duty, I must go forth from  this in 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.         19
vestigation exonerated."   It was not necessary for him  to spur me to this
duty.  I came  prepared to strike that  low creeping ignorance which was
behind the prosecution, and I have done so.
  Let us look at the character of the evidence produced by the defence, not
men of any one school of practice, but the best  living witnesses  that could
be procured in  regard to this drug.  From Philadelphia we  have Professor
Hcmpel;  from New-York, Dr. John F. Gray  and Professor Ellis; from
Milwaukie, Professor  Douglas; from Cincinnati, Dr. Hill  and Professors
King and  Freeman;  from Michigan, Dr. Hale, all men of ability and all
well acquainted with the Gelseminum, and  Dr. Hale, a laborious student of
this very drug.
  (Mr. Lothrop read extracts from the deposition and commented upon the
evidence).  It is  not the intention of the law to deal with trifling issues.
The  prosecutor has no right to present  a doubtful, plausible  or suspicious
case, and  the present  one is not even one of these.   It is shown  that the
Gelseminum is not a dangerous drug, and there was no rashness or want of
precaution in its use.   May it not, however, produce hurtful effects in some
cases ? Yes, and so may many harmless substances prove hurtful to particular
individuals on account of some strange  idiosyncrasy.  Lewis, in his " Phy-
siology of Common  Life,"  tells us of a man to whom a mutton choji* was
poison.  Coffee is a grateful  beverage,—I cannot drink it.   It  affects my
nervous system so much that I  have been compelled to abandon it entirely.
The Gelseminum  is not a  poison in the  legal sense.  In law, a  poison is a
drug  or  substance  which  in small quantities will  produce dangerous  or
hurtful effects.   Arsenic, Opium, &c, are  so classed as poisons.  The Gel-
seminum does not rank with these, but with Chloroform, Alcohol, &c.
  The prosecutor remarks that common  sense would show that such a drug
as Gelseminum must be dangerous, and the dried root stronger  than the
green.  I know not what my brother's  ideas of common sense are.  If we
take the verdict  of common observation and experience, it is that living
plants are always  preferable whether  wanted for medicinal or  culinary
purposes.   In regard to the  Gelseminum, all the physicians who use it ex-
tensively prefer the green root tincture.
  The prosecutor says when the Doctor  ascertained that the dried  root was
not inert, he  should have  stopped there.  Why?   If he had only desired
to test the strength  of the root he would, but he desired to prove it and test
its properties.
  The prosecutor thinks that these provings are of doubtful validity and
utility, but they are doubtless the sole foundation of scientific and rational
medicine.  I  do  not employ the new system, I have been attached to the
old.   Yesterday I asked a leading member of the allopathic faculty, "why
do you not give us these provings ?  I think it is a reproach to your system
of practice, that you  do not test your drugs before you prescribe  them  to
the sick."  AVhat was his reply?  «"I  do, I test my drugs on  my  own
person."   That very answer showed the weakness of his school of practice.
It confessed that provings are necessary and that they are not followed  to
an extent  sufficient  to make them useful.  Professor Hempel claims that it
is the Baconian method of induction applied to medicine.  If medical practice
is not to be mere  conjecture, we must have a philosophical basis for it.
  If it is asked why the homoeopathic system of drug-proving is not adopted,
we can only  say  that  prejudice is not  easily overcome.  Dr. Harvey dis-
covered the circulation of the blood  and was  denounced by his contem-
poraries.  Not  a  physician of forty years of age acknowledged  the dis-
covery during  the life of Harvey.  Inoculation was introduced by Lady
Mary Wortley  Montague, she practised it upon her own children and was 
 20         LEGALITY  OF DRUG  PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.

 called " an unnatural mother."  Jenner, after twenty years of experiment
 and investigation, gave us vaccination, which has stayed the ravages of the
 fearful scourge small-pox. but  he met with ridicule  and neglect.   Dr.
 Jenner occupied twenty years in careful study, observation and experiment,
 Dr. Barrett has no such difficulty in forming an opinion in relation to the
 action of a medicine that he knows nothing about.   Jenner was execrated
 and ridiculed, and men equally  as wise  as  the  opponents  of Jenner now
 ridicule " provings."  The new  practice is  not  accepted, because the old
 school is unwilling to learn from the new.
   These provings will never cease.  The scientific physician is ever on the
 alert for improved  methods of treatment;  new  diseases appear,  old  ones
 change;  new  remedies  are called for, they must be properly tested and
 proved to insure medical progress.  I am vindicating Dr. Lodge beyond the
 requirements of this particular case, not for homoeopathy, not for any par-
 ticular school of medicine, but for myself, for my family, for my  children,
 and for your children; we are all interested ; I demand in behalf of medical
 advancement, that there shall be  a recognition of this philosophical basis for
 medical practice.  That provings  shall Vj continued,  not idly, not wantonly,
 but properly and prudently.
   But I am asked what this woman CjA of.  I am not  bound to answer.
 Give me sufficient knowledge and I will tell you.  Dr. Pitcher with all his
 learning cannot tell  you.  It is all conjecture.  We believe she died of
 angina pectoris,—a disease  characterized by severe  pain, great breathless-
 ness, intense fear, &,c; the woman showed these signs, and these symptoms
 are never produced by Gelseminum.  But  conceding, for mere argument's
 sake, that the drug caused her  death, there was nothing in the  woman's
 condition, or  in the nature of the drug, to  lead him to anticipate that it
 would act injuriously, and he is therefore not responsible.   To say that the
 Gelseminum caused death, is just as mysterious and extraordinary as death
from angina pectoris.
   Sufficient has been introduced  in my argument to  secure Dr. Lodge's vin-
 dication.  He  was acting in the legitimate performance of his duty  as a
 physician; the  drug he used was not a dangerous one, and he gave it in less
than a common dose, in such a one as has not been known to prqduce death
 or injurious effects;  the  form of  death was such  as  cannot be attributed to
 the Gelseminum, and  that it is far  more correct.to assume that she died
 from angina pectoris or  someVher heart-disease, than that she died from
the Gelseminum.  Dr. Lodge is  placed in an equivocal position.  It is evi-
 dent, that he acted with reasonable care and skill.   We are all liable to  be
unjustly accused.  If we can all  justify ourselves as well as Dr. Lodge can
 himself, it will be well for us.  I congratulate myself, that I have been
 permitted to bear a part in his defence when thus unjustly assailed.  I am
 no partizan.  Though bred,in another school of practice, I am open to con-
 viction.  I say that  Dr.  Lodge has nothing to dread.  He will go from this
investigation with a  higher character as a citizen  and as a man.

                  Mr. Harbaugh's  Closing Argument.

   I confess that I feel embarassed  in attempting to address you, from a
variety of circumstances.  The case covers a great deal of ground, the action
of a certain drug,  the symptoms of the woman, &c.
   The law—all law, divine as well  as  human—attaches  great importance
to human life; no man has a riglu>to trifle with it:  the grand object of all
government, the protection of  life, liberty and property are only secondary.
When life suddenly becomes extinct, the law steps in to see that no wrong 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.          21
has been perpetrated.  If a man is found dead, the public is  not satisfied
unless a rigid scrutiny is made into the facts and circumstances which led
to the death.  In this case, upon the declaration of the accused before the
coroner, upon the evidence of his  friends at the inquest, I felt it my duty
that there should be an investigation.   Have I done wrong?
   The cases from the books where physicians are said not to be accountable
for deaths occurring under their  use  of ordinary  skill  and care, are all
where they were called upon professionally to treat diseases, they were not
experimenting.  Dr. Lodge was not called  upon to treat this  woman  pro-
fessionally,  she  was laboring under no  disease, she did  not  require any
medical treatment, there was no occasion to give her the drug.  Observe
her the morning of the day on which  she died.  She is on the front stoop
scrubbing. She was healthy.  He gives  her the drug, and she soon after dies.
   We  have had the testimony of  the physicians  regarding the proving of
medicines.  If provings  are  allowable,  how  are they to be  made  with
dangerous or poisonous drugs ?  Dr. Hempel tell us that "in experimenting
with poisons, the prover would not experiment upon strangers.  Prudence
would require that  a physician should inquire into the  constitution, habits
of life, &c, of the person before he experimented upon him or her by giving
them poisonous  drugs "  Now you see what  one of Dr. Lodge's  own wit-
nesses says, should  be the caution in  which such poisonons  drugs as Gel-
seminum should be used.
   Dr. Lodge.—And Dr. Hempel says distinctly that the Gelseminum is
NOT a drug of this character.  Read the  whole of what he says in rela-
tion to it.
   Mr. Harbaugh continuing.—If Gelseminum is a poison, if it has energy
and vitality to  do what  it will do, then a man who uses it should be ac-
quainted with the  condition and habits  of life of the subject.   They rest the
defence on the ground that he is justified in giving any medical agent as an
experiment to a healthy  person.   What  protection will this give to human
life?  What license will you give to  the men who claim this as a right?
It is only the homoeopaths who ask for it.  Provings are not resorted  to in
the  eclectic and allopathic  schools.   Shall the homoeopaths  have liberty
and license  to  endanger human  life  and then shield  themselves behind
1 provings!"  There must be  a limit to  this.  Let the Doctors try their own,
physic, 1 suppose  they do not like it any better than lawyers like law.
   We have three  several statements from Dr.  Lodge in regard to giving the
drug to the woman.  Before the coroner, of course,  he made  the  most
favorable he  could make. (?).  He experiments upon a healthy colored
woman, in  two  hours she is dead.   Why did he give it?   He knew  its
properties, the whole  profession" knew them.   Hs. wanted to see'if the dry
root Avas inert or  not, that was  all.  A fallacy to 'think the  green root is
the  strongest, Dr.  Duffield tells you it  is not so.  He made an  extra strong
tincture,  double the usual proportion of root.  He takes it himself and
gives  it to  his children, it manifested  its- effects.  Then he  gives it to the
colored woman.  Was it  prudent and  cautious?  Did  he not know that
there was danger ?  Had he  any right to give it ?
   The Doctor was at fault, he was doing an unlawful  act ?   A rash act in
a rash manner  !  He is guilty of gross negligence, reckless disregard of
human life, there  is no apology, no excuse for his wantonly and recklessly
giving that medicine.                        >
   After he gave  the drug why did he not stay with her and watch its
effects ?  He goes about his business as usual and pays" no attention to her,
until she goes to his room calling for help, "My God," &c.
   The defence  tells you  the  Gelseminum is not  a poison.  Dr. Barrett
* 
22
LEGALITY OF  DRUG PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.
testifies as to its relaxing effect, that  it produces  dimness of sight,  &c. ;
Dr. Pitcher, that it diminishes vitality; Dr. Duffield, that it is a poison and
that the dried root is the strongest. "Of course it is, do not Ave know that
the older a pill is the stronger it is !  The older the whisky the better!
  Dr. Terry testifies that he  heard of this  drug in 1830.  No new thing.
It is now included in the American Dispensary with all its effects!
  [Extract from Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine read in  relation to angina
pectoris, but not  dwelt  upon,  as in reading he found it described the death
of Margaret Washington very closely.  Lodge.]
  This thing of  attributing the death  to angina pectoris is a neAV thing.
Dr. Lodge did not speak of it  at the inquest.
  Dr. Lodge.—I  Avas not asked for my opinion in regard to the cause of
death.
  Mr. Harbaugh resuming.—He cannot escape, all Avill say, by  the action
he took, that ho did not attribute her disease to angina pectoris.
  Dr. Hale  tells us it is not a poison.  That it Avould be difficult to kill a
person with it.  He says, also, that it is a proper remedy for angina pectoris.
Why did he not  attribute the death to angina pectoris  before the coroner,
he said there, in his opinion, the death resulted from the  dropsy of the
heart and the indirect  action of  the Gelseminum.  Dr.  Barrett does not
think that she could have died of angina pectoris.  This mode of accounting
for her death is not satisfactory, it comes in a suspicious shape.
  Dr. Lodge.—Dr.  Alberton  has  testified  that he Avas  informed by me,
before  the death of this poor Avoman, that  she had  these  Avell-marked
symptoms of angina  pectoris, how can it, therefore, be an after-thought, as
you noAv say.
  Mr. Harbaugh continuing.—You are not a AAritness.
  Dr. Lod^e.—I am  not. certainly, but Dr. Alberton Avas.
  Mr.  Harbaugh resuming.—I submit to  you, gentlemen,  whether Dr.
Lodge Avas not guilty of negligence and carelessness in giving the medicine
when he had received a demonstration of its force and poAver upon his own
person.   Ought he to have given it to an ignorant woman without sitting
by her and watching her.  Take  the case and  dispose of it as  you  think
proper.  I have given my view of it.  I am sustained by  the testimony and
the law.   My duty has been  discharged.  You will do yours to the public
and the interests of the prosecution.
  Charge to the Jura-.—The defendant, Dr. Edwin A.  Lodge, is charged
in the information before you,  with the crime of manslaughter.   It is not
claimed by the prosecuting  attorney that  the defendant intended to take
life, or even to do the  deceased any  bodily harm, but it  is urged that the
defendant in administering Gelseminum, in the manner and under the cir-
cumstances, was guilty of a wanton and reckless act, and exhibited a  mind
regardless of consequences.  As you have observed, the defence set  up is
two-fold—first, it is  denied that the deceased came to her death by means
of the  Gelseminum;  and secondly, conceding that the Gelseminum Avas the
immediate cause of her death, it is denied that the giving of it in the quan-
tity, and  for the purpose shown  in the evidence, was  such  a Avanton and
reckless act as makes the defendant amenable to the law for the crime of
manslaughter.
  In relation to the appropriate rank of Gelseminum in the Materia Medica,
I must leave that to  you to be decided as one of the facts in the case.   But
I will not Avithhold the expression of my own decided  conviction, based
upon the testimony, that the  drug is a  valuable remedial or therapeutical
agent, all of Avhose properties are not yet known, but about which enough
is known to authorize it to be ranked as a very valuable medicinal agent in 
LEGALITY OF  DRUG  PROVINGS  RECOGNIZED.         23
cases of fevers, convulsions, &c.  1 think this is fully established by the evi-
dence of the medical gentlemen who were sworn on the trial.  However, I
do not mean to be understood as taking this question from your  considera-
tion, but I  expressly submit it to you as a  fact to be determined by you in
the case whether Gelseminum  is a poison as claimed by the prosecution
or not.
  The purpose for which the drug Avas administered has been stated by the
defendant himself.  He informs you that it was administered for the purpose
of proving its  properties.  This system of proving medicines is very ex-
tensively adopted in  all the schools  of physic, but it is a distinguishing
feature in the homoeopathic system, of which the defendant is a practitioner.
The administration of the Gelseminum, its properties, and the object of its
administration  considered, is claimed to be  justified on  the highest scientific
and humanitarian principles.   The right  of a practitioner to test or prove
on  well  persons the properties or  qualities of drugs is claimed to be indis-
putable.  This question is before me and must be passed upon.  It is to be
observed, that it is not claimed that a physician has the right to  administer
his medicines  indiscriminately,  without regard to  time and place, or the
health of the person upon whom the experiment is made, or the nature of
the drug administered.   Under  the restrictions hereafter to be  noticed. I
think, the right of a physician to test or prove medicinal agents on healthy
persons cannot be seriously questioned.  Unless the science  of medicine is
to be considered at a standstill, I cannot perceive how the right of practi-
tioners to experiment in some  form can be denied.   Experiments have been
made, are  made,  and always  will be  made, for otherAvise  the  science of
medicine would be in the crude and imperfect state in  AArhieh it Avas left by
Galen and Hippocrates, instead of the enlightened and advanced state in
which we find  it at the present day.  Experiments on the  loAver animals
while useful, and  often leading to the most important results,  are by no
means satisfactory and conclusive as to the effect Avhich drugs, or remedial
agents, will have on the human system.  Some of  the Avild  berries, for ex-
ample,  are fatal  to human life,  but are eaten by birds Avith impunity.
Some also eat certain roots Avithout experiencing apparently any evil effects,
which are known to be fatal  to  human  life.  The  best,  most accurate
and reliable tests are those made upon the human system.  This view is at
once  so just and obvious, that it has commended itself to  the  governments
of Europe, Avhere " Provers Unions" as they are called, for proving medi-
cines, are established and are conducted under the direct sanction of public
authority.   Such is the case  in Austria,  Prussia, Germany,  France  and
other smaller states of the continent.   We are told that accidents in these
provings are of very rare occurrence.
  By experiments, many valuable remedies have been  discovered.   The
mode of treating small-pox has been entirely reversed,  and there can be no
doubt that  the present system, called the cooling, in  contradistinction to
what is  known as the " smothering process,'' is infinitely more  successful
than  that  formerly  practiced.  The  properties of Chloroform  were  dis-
covered  in this manner by  Dr. Simpson.   Examples might be multiplied,
but they are not necessary for our  purpose.  While accident may discover
to us many valuable remedies, it is chiefly  upon experiment that we must
rely for progress in the future.  But, Avhile I concede  the moral and legal
rights of a  practitioner to experiment or prove for the benefit of science and
humanity, I wish to be  understood as  enunciating  this principle with the
restrictions and conditions now to be enumerated.  There are limits beyond
which laAV  and reason Avill not permit the experimentatist to go.  First, no
man  has the right  to  experiment upon  another  without his  consent. 
 24         LEGALITY  OF DRUG  PROVINGS RECOGNIZED.

 Secondly, the person making the experiment or proving should freely and
 candidly inform the person upon whom the experiment or proving is to be
 made, Avhat are the known properties of the  drug, whether a  poison, or
 otherwise,  and whether dangerous or nauseous.  It  is the  duty of the
 prover to administer the drug with a  due regard to the age and health of
 the person, and to  exercise such care and precaution as the  nature of the
 experiment demands.  It would not be legal  to experiment  upon a child,
 or an insane person, because in these cases  there  can be  no intelligent
 consent, and no due appreciation of the  risk  or danger incurred.  With
 these conditions and restrictions the right to experiment, as it seems to me,
 cannot be  denied.   To apply these principles to the case before you.  If
 you  shall find, the  properties of the  drug administered, the purpose for
 which it was given, and all the circumstances of the case, considered, that
 the defendant  acted in such a wanton and reckless  manner as to indicate
 a regardlessness of human life and  health, and that the deceased came to
 her death from the  Gelseminum,  then you  should render a verdict of guilty.
 But should you find all the circumstances considered, that the defendant used
 all proper care and that his conduct did not exhibit recklessness, then, even
 though death Avas caused by the Gelseminum, you should acquit, of course;
 if the Gelseminum did not cause the  death of the deceased, your verdict
 should be not guilty.
  After a short absence, the jury returned into court and rendered a verdict
 of not guilty.


  The  above impartial  report  shows  so clearly  the malice,
prejudice, and ignorance which  characterized the prosecution,
that I submit it  to the profession without any comment.
                                       Edwin A. LoDofe,  M.D.
  Detroit, July 3d, 1862. 
 
1 
 
            c c cc   ' <   < c<c<*c
          /cc cc<   (<   c<r<r<<
         c  cc ccc f<c«c  ccco^
             c_c OC< &cCL  CCc<-

    <  cc  <: ccks   c<.  ccc

  cc c   cc  <Sr< tfc'SS  cr^:
r-?r < •. c<  <; c «:ct ><-<r<:  cc <
g c- C  CTCf «3Cc ,cCC  or«
V <  <  <c<   «C < « <•. <- < c«.  w -
> « < c  c <•  d Cc « Cv < ■ < C



  cc  c c Cc
  CcC C <  C C
C  Cc
c  cc (Ccr <f-<
c c cc  <CJ. <c <
 C< C<  «IO «C
cc< c:   cc (_c
 cc< «c   c c c. <
CCC  CC CC  <TC <2
 C<< C  Cg,« cc  ■
 c<C  <<* c c
  f<" c  <..**'' c c  '
 CC C  Ccc« (C <
   "     <& c c  •
         < <<•  s. c
          <e<e<  c c C  «:
         ft© C c C Cj.
          cw.  cj'- c  <■:
^. < cc <: cc

 LcccCcc
< cr'<fc <r^*. c c c
 C. «*  - c  «C cce?.  CCC
<■<■ «:<:  cc  •«:  <<*<  < < t
C <C «C  «"~ C<C"  C  c C
C.CCfc  < cc   CcC<
<3Cc cC «5T
fZt&^O C~ccc C( ^"CC CCC<^


 £  ^rrf cf >C CSSC^c
5C <T<r«c


        «<: ccc
CcC «
C ccc
 C cc <;
 c cc «
 C cc t:
  < c<
 C CC c;
C CC <r:
«• ■ rC cc  <c
CCCC C  <"<■
 t •« C cc  cc.
CC dec C
"c c C C«c
" cVCcC  c C  C5! <
 C C^  f c^-

 c c cc  c c
 c",c c/&  ^
 c  c  <-Cf
 <  c «L cc
. c  c><:  c< c
«^ <! C




.cTc
-C C  ■
CCC C  C :
£C< «. C :
 i.CC C O
 S± < c  c ?
  «c «- «  .
Vc W^c  cc  «:<7  -

       Vc c C.  <TC C
 « cr  -<7cvc  <
 '■«c^ ^,-x  ^r^c«r <(,?
 * cc <%   <rrV <rc'
 Cc.  <c  €^c


 ^c  g lr^C^
  ^c  <  c *  - "C".« < ■ ■


CC  Cc  C C  c«     C<
cc cc «Tc\-£  cc c c c  «ar  (5S