MEDICAL EXPERT TESTIMONY. 605 



or, in many cases, even approximate concurrence of opinion among 

 experts of equal qualifications, is natural and ought to excite no sur- 

 prise. Those are the unreasonable persons who expect anything else. 

 Of course, it is desirable that there should be no disagreement, since 

 in the decision of so nice a question one grain of testimony, more or 

 less, cast into either scale may decide the life or liberty of the per- 

 son whose case is before the court ; but for the fallibility of human 

 opinions, at least to the extent now supposed, no remedy has as yet 

 been provided. 



3. If it be true that expert testimony, when questions of sanity or 

 of moral responsibility are involved, is often contradictory and irrec- 

 oncilable, it is equally true of expert testimony where questions of 

 much less complexity are involved. It is true in nearly all cases of 

 dispute upon matters of science, art, or commerce. In the Feuardent 

 Di Cesnola suit Ave have seen one expert in archseology affirm that a 

 piece of statuary was as it came from the hands of the original artist, 

 while another has declared with equal confidence that it was con- 

 structed from fragments obtained from different sources. In the in- 

 vestigation which followed the Ashtabula catastrophe, it was ascer- 

 tained that one man, who was supposed to be both theoretically and 

 practically acquainted with the construction of railroad-bridges, had 

 declared this bridge to have been built according to the most approved 

 system, and that it was perfectly safe, while another expert had ex- 

 pressed a contrary opinion ; and this important question was left to 

 be finally and definitively settled when the bridge had given way un- 

 der the weight of a passing train, and twenty or more lives were lost. 



Does it often happen, in any class of cases, that lawyers are unable 

 to obtain expert testimony for their clients, in case they stand in need 

 of it, or that the testimony on the two sides is not conflicting ? 



Not alone experts, but lawyers also, if we can accept their own 

 statements, do not often agree in opinion as to the merits of the cases 

 of their respective clients. The courts also are far from uniformity in 

 their decisions and their interpretation of the law and the facts. 



It has been asked, " If witnesses are not suborned, how does it 

 happen that experts so uniformly testify in the interest of the parties by 

 whom they are employed ? " As if it were a question which admitted 

 of but one answer, namely, that the witness gave his testimony under 

 oath, only as a consideration for the pay he was to receive, and with- 

 out regard to the sanctity of his oath, or to the value of his reputation 

 as a citizen and a man of science. 



This question, asked no doubt seriously, will be answered serionsly : 

 Because no intelligent lawyer would call an expert witness to the 

 stand until he had ascertained, after a full statement of the case to 

 him, what bis opinions were. He would not summon a witness who 

 would certainly, or even possibly, damage the cause of his client. 



It is fair to conclude, from the preceding statement of facts, that 



