68 JOURNAL OF THE [April, 



The Microscope in Jurisprudence. — While an entire 

 human body may be distinguished as such with certainty, histo- 

 logical knowledge is not, in my opinion, sufficiently advanced at 

 the present day to enable one to say that any microscopic struc- 

 ture is absolutely characteristic of and peculiar to a human being. 



While it is true that no one can say that a given microscopic 

 structure is part of a human being, and not of any other animal, 

 he might say with certainty, that it could not be from some 

 animals in which the given structure is known to be very differ- 

 ent. The histological or microscopical expert, in my opinion 

 then, cannot give positive evidence with regard to the exact 

 source of any microscopic structure. The most he can do is to 

 say what it may be, and what it cannot be. Even this, unsatis- 

 factory as it may seem, requires a profound knowledge of 

 human and comparative histology, and of the changes that may 

 be produced in the various structures by drying and dampness, 

 by chemical and mechanical means. There is also often re- 

 quired a thorough knowledge of optics, and great manipulative 

 skill. He, who, in the name of Science, allows himself through 

 ignorance or design to become an advocate and not an ex- 

 pounder of the whole truth, so far as it is known, has been well 

 characterized by Woodward as possibly more dangerous to 

 society than the criminals he is called upon to convict; and the 

 lawyer who through ignorance or design allows truth and justice 

 to be so betrayed, is no better. — Extract from Notes on Histo- 

 logical Methods, by Simon H. Gage. 



