in the same lecture room, and under the same instructors, which must tend to har monize and bring the two professions nearer to each other. The medical expert on the trial should confine himself to the domain of medical science and skill in the exclusive capacity of a witness. He should not act also as counsel or medical prompter for the at torneys. The questions and the cross ques tions should be formulated and put by the trial lawyers; and as a part of their prepara tion of the case, they should master the medical questions involved and be qualified to intelligently examine and cross-examine the experts. This preparation requires time, study, research, reflection, and, fre quently, access to the chemical and physical laboratory, and to the dissecting room. It is unprofessional for the trial attorney to go upon the witness stand and swear to matters which can be established by other evidence, and it should be so regarded as to the doc tor, as it always impairs the weight of his testimony. The forensic management of the case is for the lawyer, and if he is in competent properly to try it, let him, and not the expert witness, bear the odium. His mind, like the mind of the commanding general in battle, should compass the whole field from center to outpost. In medico legal cases, he should have sufficient knowl edge of the nature and the amount of medical evidence required to make out a case, to intelligently pass upon the scien tific facts involved, and to clearly marshal them before court and jury. Many lawyers fail in this class of cases in consequence of their crude and defective preliminary educa tion. Before the student is permitted to commence his legal studies, should he not be thoroughly trained in rhetoric, logic, psychology and kindred subjects, and be well grounded in the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, biology and hygiene? Should he not know enough of anatomy to be able to determine
whether the os ealeis is located in the head 01 heel? — enough of physiology to distinguish between the functions of the lungs and liver; and enough of chemistry to appreciate the action of an alkali upon an acid? Certainly he should have such a knowledge of these sciences as would enable him to ascertain and apply their truths to the affairs of justice. The lawyer should be qualified to intelli gently determine whether the claimant has, in fact, received an injury, or is a malingerer; whether his symptoms are objective or subjective, real or simulated; whether the suit is brought for blackmail or for justice. He should also be able to distinguish between the learned doctor and the ignorant quack, between the qualified and the unqualified, between the counterfeit and the genuine ex pert. The medical wit'ness is usually called only in important criminal and civil cases, where great interests and large amounts are in volved, which emphasizes the importance of accuracy and candor on his part. If a ques tion of chemistry or toxicology is raised depending upon an analysis, he should make such analysis step, by step with the utmost care, and verify each process before he swears to the result. He should not only remember that important interests are at stake, but also that it is the duty of the cross-examiner to become a specialist upon the matters involved, and to require him to disclose what was and what was not done upon such analysis. The chemist should be certain that his chemicals and apparatus are pure and uncontaminated, lest he be deceived, and thereby deceive the court and jury, and inflict the consequence of his blunder upon an innocent party, whose life, liberty or prop erty must pay the penalty. The importance of knowing what materials are used in such tests was demonstrated a few years ago in an eastern State. The case depended upon the chemical question whether or not starch existed in mustard seed. A celebrated analytical chemist testi
