[Footnote 18:  Since writing the present paper I have been shown a private letter of Judge Pierce, written last April in regard to the first trial of Mrs. Wharton.  After considerable solicitation the judge has allowed the publication of an extract from it, which I insert here as the words of one of our most eminent criminal jurists, He says:  “I had made up my mind, when Dr. Williams’s first testimony was concluded, that the case would fail.  When Professor Aiken’s examination was concluded it was beyond recovery.  All efforts to secure a conviction after that were a waste of time and money.  The case could have been safely for the defendant given to the jury on the testimony of the prosecution alone.  If I had been sitting as a judge in the case, I would have instructed the jury at the close of the case for the State, if there had been no other testimony, that the evidence would not warrant a conviction.  And I would have set aside the verdict if the jury had found the defendant guilty.  I do not know the lady who was so wantonly charged with this crime, and I do not know of any case in the annals of criminal jurisprudence which, from the evidence submitted in the case, had so baseless a foundation for so grave a charge.”]

[Footnote 19:  It is proper to state that Miss Wharton, in his presence, partook of the same claret, but perceived nothing peculiar either in its taste, as she told him at the time, or in its effects upon her afterward.  According to Miss Wharton’s testimony, Mrs. Wharton actually drank the claret left in the glass of Mr. Van Ness directly after he left the room.]

[Footnote 20:  This bottle was found in the house after the arrest of Mrs. Wharton, with compound tincture of gentian in it.

I have outlined the circumstances as Mr. Van Ness told them.  A peculiarity of this trial was the direct contradiction of witnesses.  Mr. Van Ness for a long time refused to entertain the idea that Mrs. Wharton had poisoned him.  Whilst he was being persuaded into this belief he sent for Mrs. Neilson, a prominent lady of Baltimore, with whom both he and Mrs. Wharton were very intimate, and dismissing his wife from the room had a private conversation with her.  During this, according to Mrs. Neilson’s testimony, he stated that Mrs. Wharton could not have poisoned him on the Saturday, because they had exchanged glasses when he complained of the bitterness of the one into which she had put the gentian.  On the stand Mr. Van Ness flatly denied ever having said anything of the sort.  In a point of such vital importance it is impossible to account for the contradiction by “failure of memory.”

Miss Neilson also contradicted Mr. Van Ness, and the act was in this case especially impressive from the manner in which it was done.  Miss Neilson being on the stand, a dispute arose as to whether Mr. Van Ness had or had not previously made a sufficient denial for contradiction.  To settle this, Miss Neilson left the stand:  Mr. Van Ness went up and took the oath.  Then the question was put, “Did you say so and so?” He answered, “I certainly did not.”  Miss Neilson returning to the stand immediately after this, the question was put to her.  The court-room was in the deepest silence while in a low but audible voice she replied, “He did say it.”  The testimony of these ladies was in no degree shaken by a severe cross-examination.]