The late inquest at Putney: a commentary on the attempted vindication of John Rose Cormack, M.D., Edin. : with an appendix, containing important documents and editorial articles relating to the above inquiry / by John Farmer.

  • Farmer, John.
Date:
1847
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The late inquest at Putney: a commentary on the attempted vindication of John Rose Cormack, M.D., Edin. : with an appendix, containing important documents and editorial articles relating to the above inquiry / by John Farmer. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    23/24 (page 23)
    OQ (Vt) the whole of the medico1 evidence in my favour—to hear, that in the very newspaper parag aph that has given rise to all the correspon- dence in the Morning Post, deliberate alterations—no less than eleven in number—have been made by Dr. Cormack in transferring the same to the pages of his pamphlet! Yes! in this one short article of about thirty lines there is to be discovered one interpolation, omission, or substitution, in, upon an average, every three lines of the reprint! ! Nor is this all. In other letters of the correspondence the same tricks of revision are to be detected. Thus, in one of Dr. Cormack’s communications to the Morning Post, transferred to his pamphlet, is to be found the word, “like,” craftily introduced before the words, “ Tom Thumb,” in a passage, no doubt intended in the original to have been highly offensive to the medical juror. There is, to say the least of it, some considerable difference between being called an insig- nificant personage, and being said to have done a simple act like one. Again, in one of the medical juror’s letters, wherein that gentleman speaks of the family of deceased applying to me “ but twice for me- dicines for their relative,” the words, “for medicines,” which are to be found in the original, are thought unnecessary in the reprint—thus leaving the readers of the pamphlet to draw an inference that I was known to have visited the deceased in the capacity of a regular me- dical attendant! Could there be any thing more unfair or dishonest ? In the same letter, as well as in other parts of the pamphlet, similar alterations occur, the object of making which is transparent enough; and yet this is called a correct and unabridged account of the trans- action. And this, too, is the way in which the Doctor deals with people’s reputations!! It may be thought a piece of presumption in me, a mere druggist, to take to task a physician ; but I really cannot part with my oppo- nent without offering him a wholesome piece of advice ; and I will do this in the same words—changing but the name—as once did a learned Serjeant of the law, in replying to an attack by a gentleman of Dr. Cormack’s own profession. ‘ Au reste: Follow the example of Lady Teazle, and return your diploma to the scandalous college, with the ordinary message, that you, John Rose Cormack, M.D., Fellow, &c. &c. &c , have retired from practice, and kill characters no more.’ By what has been set forth in the preceding pages, I trust it has been rendered tolerably clear to my readers, that not only has the endea- vour to shift upon me the entire onus of such a case as the one under consideration been prompted by some of the worst feelings of human nature, but that the tactics of Dr. Cormack throughout the contro- versy, (especially in omitting in his pamphlet the entire medical testimony hearing in my favour) has been altogether unworthy of an honourable antagonist. The provocation to asperity on my part, in the compilation of this commentary, has therefore been very great, but I trust my readers will give me credit for some considerable forbearance, when they con- sider the malevolence which must have dictated the attacks. Did I,