opinions, he should distinguish between pro fessional knowledge and professional bigotry. He should not be wise in his own conceit, and should beware of that confidence which is born of ignorance, "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread." The practice of medicine, in some respects, does not tend to develop the mental qualities requisite for a good expert witness. The doctor at the bedside adopts one theory, and that is his own theory of the case. He is not accustomed to have his theory ques tioned or controverted. Often when his opinions and theories are questioned or con troverted on the witness-stand, he impulsively considers it a personal attack; his resentment is aroused; his mental equanimity is dis turbed, and his feelings, not his learning and best judgment, dictate his answers until his testimony is punctured, and he is impaled upon the horn of a dilemma. The lack of self-possession, disciplined mind, accurate learning, and impartiality, humiliates many expert witnesses in court, and brings re proach upon their profession. However much the doctor and the lawyer may complain of each other, in the depart ment of forensic medicine the two professions cannot be divorced. While the surgeon's knife and the cross-examiner's blade may be unskillfully and improperly used, yet the abuse does not preclude their proper use. In this common field of science and art, there should be no jealousies or conflicts be tween the two professions. There is ample room for both. Many of the truths of legal medicine lie upon the surface, and are acquired by the casual observer, while the richer gems lie deep below, and are secured only by the most energetic disciple. The former are the inheritance of mediocrity; the latter, the insignia of eminence. There have been too many half-educated doctors on the witness-stand, and too many super
ficial lawyers at the bar, who, without adequate learning in this part of their pro fessions, without the intellectual gifts, or mental discipline to comprehend the funda mental principles or to master their details and functions and apply them to the affairs of justice, and without any just conception of the heavy responsibility or the moral obliga tion imposed, assume to disclose scientific facts which are to them unknown, to describe functions of which they are ignorant, to im part knowledge which they do not possess, and to formulate verdicts which deprive fellow-beings of life, liberty or property. To such doctors and to such lawyers, the ad monition of Junius can be repeated : " I do not give you to posterity as a pattern to imitate, but as an example to deter." But this class of professional men are al ready diminishing in number, and the in creasing requirements of the professional schools, the better facilities for instruction, and the higher standards for professional license must accelerate the decrease. Let the lawyer know enough about the matters of medical science at issue to enable him to intelligently formulate and put such hypo thetical questions as will draw out the medi cal facts involved, and to enable him to know when he has received a full answer; let the doctor have sufficient intellectual discipline and medical learning to enable him to clearly comprehend the various ele ments involved in the question, to hold them in mind long enough to apply his medical knowledge, and mentally to formulate, and concisely express a pertinent answer to the whole question; disbar the shyster, suppress the quack, let candor, learning and intelli gence inspire the examination; and criticism will be avoided, professional progress will be advanced, and the cause of justice will be served.
