6o6 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the supposed evils of the present system of procuring expert testimony 

 in cases of alleged lunacy have been greatly exaggerated, if they are 

 not wholly imaginary. Such cases are not decided by the experts. 

 Having given their opinions under a direct examination, they are sub- 

 jected to a sharp cross-examination by skillful attorneys, who subse- 

 quently, and after sufficient time has been given for study and reflec- 

 tion, are permitted to argue the case to the jury. The judges comment 

 upon the law and facts relating to the case ; and, finally, the jurors, 

 rendered thoroughly familiar with all the points in dispute, and acting 

 independently, render the verdict : and they are better able to do this 

 intelligently than they would have been if there had been no discus- 

 sion. 



It is evident also that the supposed evils are not limited to one, but 

 that they extend in an equal degree to all other classes of expert tes- 

 timony. 



Those who are of opinion that the evil is actual and serious have 

 from time to time suggested various remedies. 



It has been suggested that experts should be appointed as advisers 

 to the courts, by the State or municipal governments. 



Against this method lies the grave objection that the public can 

 have no assurance that the best men would be chosen. The appointing 

 power might be influenced by personal or political motives, rather than 

 by the acknowledged fitness of the person chosen ; and it could pro- 

 vide for experts in only one class of cases, since no man could be an 

 expert in all cases in which his services were required. 



If it is proposed that the courts should themselves, as occasion might 

 arise, make the appointments, the method would still be liable to the 

 objection that even the courts could not always be relied upon not to 

 make choice of improper men, either because they were uninformed, or 

 entertained personal friendships. 



To a certain extent, in cases where the ends of justice plainly de- 

 mand the exercise of this authority, the courts, or the attorneys who 

 oflicially represent the courts or the Government, are, under existing 

 laws, permitted to summon expert witnesses ; and, in the narrow lim- 

 its within which this power is now authorized and exercised, it can do 

 no harm. It is only against the exercise of this authority as an exclu- 

 sive or even general mode of obtaining expert medical testimony, that 

 I desire to record my protest. 



In whomsoever the power to make these appointments may be 

 vested, and in whatever manner it may be exercised, and whether the 

 experts may be subject to cross-examination or not, in either case it 

 seems to me liable to work injustice. It happens often that the ac- 

 cused comes into court under the imputation of a verdict of the coro- 

 ner's jury, and under the adverse influence— more or less — of a present- 

 ment or indictment of a grand jury, both of which may be, and usually 

 are, based upon ex parte testimony. The State or district attorney is 



