[Controversy with Dr. John Eberle].

  • Webster, James, 1803-1854.
Date:
[1827?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: [Controversy with Dr. John Eberle]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    6/10
    am not in the least concerned therefore at its rejection.—There id no other man than Dr. M'Clellan with whom I will associate. The Public have now before them the facts in this business, from which they will of course draw their own conclusions; but I would beg leave to observe, is it likely that Dr. Eberle would have offered to come back, if as he says he was in such Utter Disgust? Comment is unnecessary. The notes of Dr. Eberle to which I have referred and made extracts from, I have in my possession, and will show them to any person who may wish to see them, also copies of my notes to him. Were I disposed to dwell on the various circumstances in relation to Dr. Eberle, within my own knowledge, they would indeed present a most melancholy picture of depraved human nature. I will only point out a few of the most prominent. 1. Ingratitude for favours rendered to himself and Family. 2. Of offer,ng an insult in his own house, to one of my family, when asked to answer a question on a subject, respecting which, he alone had it in his power to tell the truth; but in doing which, he was well aware that it would no doubt, have involved his Friend Dr. G. M'Clellan. 3. Of his bringing a claim against me, long after I had paid, and taken his receipt in full of all demands. This claim was brought on a summons before Mr. Badger; to this account Dr. Eberle swore as not having re- ceived any part of it, when it was clearly proved to the satisfaction of Mr. Badger the same had been paid, and he accordingly gave judgment in my favour: in this affair, Dr. M'Clellax appeared as evidence in support of the claim. The fact is that the Doctor had received from me nearly double the amount of what he claimed. 4. Of his having said that although I had paid him, it was in some and many instances, in money that was 18 per cent, below par. This is untrue; in some instances I gave him my notes, but 1 paid them every cent in good money,.some of the notes went into the hands of his friend Mn. Evaxs, and for what I know, might have been shaved, but in that case they were none of my concern. I now take up the subject of the letters, and Dr. Eberle's miserable at- tempt to clear himself of this dishonorable and deceitful transaction. I am at a loss to account for his blindness, in not seeing the gulf he has prepared for himself. It will be recollected by every one who lias read Dr. Eberle'* pamphlet, page 4, that he acknowledges having written the following to Dr. D.—I regret that Revere and Fattisojt have withdrawn from the Recorder. I am not afraid, however, but that you and I will be able fully to carry on the work with quite as much ability as it has hitherto been done. There is no one with whom I would sooner conduct a journal than yourself; and 1 am perfectly satisfied that we, and we alone, should edit the Recorder. It will also be recollected that he says he wrote the same, in answer to Dr. D's. letter of the 28th July 1821. He also says at this time that Dr. D's. conduct towards him was always gentlemanly and friendly. Now compare this with the following extract: Dr. E. to J. W. 31st. July 1821. I would rather have the sole Editorship, provided I have a few names associated with mine as contributors. D. is, Jfind, wanting in judgment. He has made some lamentable faux-pas lately. However I do not know- how you can well get rid of him. 1: will be seen by the above that the Doctor must, agreeable to his own statement, have written to me and Dr. D. if not on the same day, within one or two days of each other. I think every one will be ready to ex- claim with me, 0 Doctor! thine own mouth condemneth thee and not I. But I will show that Da. Eberle must have been engaged in a plan to remove D'i. D. in May 1821. In this month P. of Baltimore was in Phila- delphia and from a conversation between him and Ebehle, overheard on board the steam boat, I have no doubt it was then fixed that Dr. D. should be removed. P. observed, say nothing until you hear from me. Mr. II ansa will no doubt recollect this circumstance. Soon after P. returned ii Baltimore he wrote a letter to Diu Eberle, which letter no doubt was