Am.  Jour.  Pharm. ) 
February,  1905.  J 
Editorial. 
95 
That  the  method  suggested  by  Dr.  Cohen  is  opportune  and  even 
likely  to  be  carried  out  in  a  measure  at  an  early  day  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  an  attempt  is  now  being  made  by  the  Massachusetts  legisla- 
ture "  to  pass  a  bill  to  regulate  the  employment  of  expert  witnesses,  to 
reduce  the  cost  of  expert  testimony  and  to  introduce  official  expert 
evidence  by  giving  the  courts  authority  in  homicide  cases  to  appoint 
one  or  more  suitable  and  disinterested  persons  to  investigate  the 
issues  and  testify  at  the  trial.  This  provision,  however,  does  not  pre- 
vent either  the  prosecution  or  the  defense  from  producing  other 
expert  witnesses.  The  proposed  measure  provides  that  no  expert 
witness  shall  be  paid  compensation  for  his  services  in  excess  of  the 
ordinary  witness  fees  provided  by  law,  unless  the  court  awards  him 
a  larger  sum. 
"The  bill  provides  that  no  more  than  three  experts  shall  be  allowed 
to  testify  on  either  side,  except  in  prosecutions  for  murder.  The 
proposed  legislation  is  not  to  apply  to  witnesses  testifying  to  the 
1  established  facts  or  deductions  of  science,  nor  to  any  other  specific 
facts,  but  only  to  witnesses  testifying  to  matters  of  opinion.'  The 
bill  seems  to  be  aimed  particularly  at  the  hand-writing  expert,  whose 
testimony  is  necessarily  an  expression  of  opinion." 
The  question  is  a  far-reaching  one,  not  only  concerning  the  public 
welfare  and  the  legal  profession,  but  also  the  status  of  the  scientific 
expert  and  even  of  science  itself  ;  for  if  supposedly  scientific  men 
can  be  found  who  render  opinions  diametrically  opposed  when 
there  should  be  but  one  opinion  or  judgment  on  the  same  set  of 
facts,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  testimony  of  such  men  and  of  the 
sciences  which  they  represent,  or  even  of  truth  itself?  It  is  high 
time  that  an  effort  be  made  to  rescue  the  calling  of  the  scientific 
expert  from  the  grip  of  the  sordid  influences  which  surround  it  and 
to  place  it  where  it  belongs,  not  only  that  the  calling  may  not  fall 
wholly  into  disrepute,  but  that  the  best  interests  of  those  it  is 
intended  to  benefit  may  not  suffer. 
We  are  fortunate  in  having  this  subject  presented  at  this  time  in 
the  clear  and  convincing  manner  it  is  in  Dr.  Cohen's  paper. 
