236 
Editorial. 
J  Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
1  '    May  1, 1872. 
Professor  Tonry's  experiments  were  also  unsatisfactory,  for  various  reasons. 
In  this  trial  it  took  several  days  to  contradict  this  expert  testimony. 
The  Scientific  American  of  March  9th,  p.  167,  relates  another  instance  of  un- 
reliable expert  testimony. 
"  In  a  recent  trademark  suit,  relating  to  the  manufacture  of  mustard,  Dr.  Ogderi 
Doremus,  of  New  York, swore  thatmustard  seeds  contained  over  eleven  per  cent, 
of  starch.  To  prove  it,  he  used  a  solution  of  iodine  upon  mustard  placed  on  filr 
tering  paper,  which  paper  gave,  when  tested,  the  characteristic  reaction  of 
iodine  with  starch  when  no  mustard  was  present.  The  error  in  the  experiment 
was  pointed  out  by  Professors  Seely  and  Chandler.  Dr.  Doremus  was  aided  by 
Dr.  Austin  Flint,  who  tried  to  confirm,  by  the  use  of  a  microscope,  what  Dr. 
Doremus  tried  to  prove  by  the  iodine  test.  Dr.  Flint  swore  that  he  could  see 
the  granules  of  starch  by  the  use  of  a  high  power.  Professors  Seely  and  Chan- 
dler could  not  see  any  such  granules,  but  they  did  see  what  they  thought  might 
have  been  fragments  of  the  exterior  envelopes  of  the  seeds.  Dr.  Doremus  has, 
in  a  letter  since  published,  affirmed  the  presence  of  starch  in  mustard  seed  (he 
says  nothing  of  the  percentage),  and  attempted  to  prove  it  by  a  test  which 
would  give  the  same  results  with  cellulose  as  with  starch." 
When  mustard  seeds  are  freed  from  their  fixed  oil  by  oil  of  turpentine,  and 
then  washed  with  alcohol,  the  residue  is  not  colored  blue  by  iodine.  Starch 
granules  have  never  been  observed  in  mustard  seed  ;  but  amorphous  starch  was 
at  one  time  supposed  to  be  contained  therein ;  the  above  experiment,  however, 
completely  disproves  this. 
The  Scientific  American,  in  commenting  upon  a  number  of  similar  cases,  cor- 
rectly says  that  now  the  jury  must  make  a  guess  as  to  what  is  right  or  wrong, 
and  the  average  juryman  is  rather  more  likely  to  guess  wrong  than  right  in  mat- 
ters of  science.    It  concludes  an  article,  with  the  above  caption,  as  follows  : 
"  Now  there  is  a  plain,  simple  and  practical  remedy  for  this  state  of  things. 
In  all  cases  where  there  are  points  of  law  to  be  decided,  there  is  an  arbiter  on 
the  bench  to  perform  that  office.  There  should  be  an  equally  authoritative 
tribunal  to  decide  on  scientific  points,  a  separate  jury  of  experts,  if  may  be,  con- 
stituting, for  the  time,  a  scientific  court,  whose  charge  to  the  jury  should  be 
as  authoritative  as  that  of  the  judge.  Would  it  not  be  refreshing  to  hear  such 
a  witness  as  the  one  mentioned  above,  who  swore  to  finding  aconite,  disposed 
of  in  the  following  fashion  ?  :  4  It  is  my  duty,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  as  foreman 
of  the  scientific  jury  in  this  case,  to  instruct  you  that  aconite  cannot  be  detected 
by  the  process  described  in  the  testimony  of  the  witness.  However  much  he 
may  be  convinced  that  he  did  so,  it  is  contrary  to  known  laws  of  chemistry  to 
suppose  that  he  so  obtained  it.  You  are,  therefore,  to  dismiss  from  your  minds 
the  possibility  of  such  a  result,  in  your  deliberations  of  the  case.'  Or  perhaps 
this  : 
"  'The  process  sworn  to  by  A  will  obtain  arsenic  from  the  stomach  of  a  per- 
son poisoned  by  that  substance.  The  process  sworn  to  by  B  will  not  obtain  it. 
A  says  that  by  his  process  he  found  no  arsenic  :  B  says  he  found  it  in  a  process 
by  which  he  could  not  have  found  it.  It  remains  for  you  to  judge  whether,  if 
by  an  accurate  method  arsenic  could  not  be  found,  the  testimony  of  one  who 
swears  he  found  it  by  an  impossible  process  proves  its  presence.' 
"  Let  such  a  course  be  pursued,  and  we  soon  should  have  somewhat  less  of 
pseudo  science  on  the  witness  stand,  and  true  scientific  testimony  would  become 
of  real  value." 
