EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
I f* f* 
00 
infringe too much on our limited space, we will close these 
remarks by observing, that Dr. Angus Smith has lately 
read a paper at the Society of Arts on the “ Science of our 
Courts of Law,” which is reported in The Chemical News. 
Some of the views therein stated may be gathered from the 
following extracts : 
c ‘ The doctor thinks that while the position of science is 
universally recognised, the position of the scientific man is 
not. He has no status in a court of law, but is allowed to 
appear under the vague name of a witness; and as such is 
liable to be cross-examined bv an advocate, who is anxious 
to turn the evidence to the advantage of his client—a course 
which does not always tend to the elicitation of truth. But 
it is not right that the scientific man should act as advocate. 
He ought to be a student of nature, who loves whatever 
nature says in the most disinterested manner. If he be¬ 
comes an advocate he is removed from his sphere, and the very 
ideal of his character is destroyed. Nor is he exactly fitted 
to be a judge. There is no trial in a court purely scientific. 
Individual and social rights are always involved, and it does 
not belong to a “ scientist’s” province to see the social bear¬ 
ings of a case. He is equally unfitted to act in the capacity 
of judge and jury united. All law has a tendency to 
pedantry, that is, a belief in its absolute perfection, forgetful 
of numerous antagonistic possibilities for which a wider ob¬ 
servation willingly makes allowance. The jury represents 
this wider observation of the untrammelled human spirit; 
and the number is twelve or more instead of one, because the 
operations of the individual spirit are uncertain; of the aver¬ 
age man nearly certain. It represents also the absence of 
pedantry or the exaggeration of the law, by the absence of 
legal knowledge. If we put scientific inquirers in their place 
we increase the pedantry by adding physical to social law. 
Besides this it is against the principles of the country to give 
any class of men uncontrolled authority. Nor is Dr. Smith 
in favour of commissions recommendatory. The power of a 
scientific commission reporting, without being cross-examined 
must be invincible, and consequently a jury would cease to 
