EXPERT TESTIMONY. 655 



attorney ; lie testifies to matters which involve more than bare 

 facts, which require special training, and reach out into points of 

 delicate judgment, careful interpretations of evidence, and state- 

 ments of what is or is not received as scientific opinion. The 

 ordinary witness is well within the range of experience of every 

 man on the jury ; the expert speaks of regions into which the 

 jurors have never entered. He testifies, but he also cross-exam- 

 ines, albeit by proxy : for he supplies the lawyers on the same 

 side with himself with questions for the confounding of his 

 adversary. The attorney is merely a legal expert who argues a 

 case for his client, but is not sworn to speak the truth ; the expert 

 witness argues, but under an oath which admits of reservations. 

 The two are different in matters of form, but not in matters of 

 practice. They are, in short, colleagues. 



Now in the organization of the courts the legal elements have 

 a position of peculiar advantage. First, there are the opposing 

 lawyers, who were once examined for admission to the bar, and 

 who may be disbarred for unworthy or unprofessional conduct. 

 Each argues his case in favor of his client, raising a legal fog or 

 clearing away confusion according to which policy is the better. 

 But over them is the bench, with its trained experts sitting in 

 judgment on the case, deciding all principles of law as controversy 

 arises, listening to and weighing the arguments, and finally, in 

 jury trials, addressing a charge to the jury. The legal questions 

 are discussed by legal experts, and decided by impartial legal 

 arbiters ; but the scientific problems which come before a court 

 are subjected to no such arbitration. Just here a line of reform 

 is plainly indicated — not as to the final settlement of scientific 

 questions, of course, but at least as to their proper presentation 

 before judges and juries. Between opposing experts only experts 

 can decide. 



Two measures at once suggest themselves : First, that all ex- 

 perts who desire court-practice should be registered, or go through 

 some form of admission to practice, in such a way as to certify in 

 a measure to their having received a proper scientific training. 

 The time of the courts should not be wasted by scientific dabblers 

 or amateurs. Experts should also be liable to something like dis- 

 barment for sufficient cause. Secondly, whenever the parties to 

 a suit bring in expert testimony, the court itself should have the 

 right to summon other experts, who, standing in a semi- judicial 

 and non-partisan position, could listen to evidence and arguments, 

 weigh both, and aid the judges either in the preparation of their 

 opinion, or in framing their charge to the jury. So, just as the 

 legal experts pass upon matters of law, the scientific experts would 

 pass upon matters of science, and the results could not be other 

 than favorable. Pretenders, getting less easily before the courts. 



