The Medical Expert and the Legal Examiner. fied on one side that mustard seed contained over eleven per cent, of starch; and two celebrated analytical themists testified on the other side that there was no starch in mustard seed. At the request of the first named chemist, he was given an opportunity to demonstrate the truth of his assertions. The apparatus and materials were brought into the court room, and the tests were made before court, jury and counsel. The mus tard seeds were pounded and then boiled in distilled water. The solution was deposited on sheets of filtering paper. The chemical tests were applied, and the characteristic blue iodide of starch was exhibited in tri umph. The experiment was repeated in various ways, and many sheets of paper were thus colored. The demonstration appeared to be conclusive. The chemists on the other side of the case were also recalled, and they made tests before the court and jury which as clearly demonstrated that there was no starch in mustard seed. The defendant's counsel said to one of the last-named ex perts, "Are you not satisfied with the re action for starch exhibited by the defendant's chemist on a dozen or more sheets of pa per?" The witness answered, "I am not certain, to begin with, that the paper would not have produced that reaction without the mustard." The counsel gave him some of the unused filtering paper, and asked him to make the test. The witness did so, and the same deep blue tint was the result, thus showing the illusory nature of the prior tests, and that the experiment was entirely worthless as proof of the facts at issue. Had this expert used pure filtering paper in his experiment, as well as distilled water, instead of filtering paper that had been sized in a solution of starch, he would have saved him self this humiliation. (By the way, if the "color" was the only evidence of starch, what value could there have been in the ex periment as proof, if the operators and ob servers had been color blind?) The general practitioner is liable at any
361
moment to be called upon to make post mortem examinations. Such examinations should be exhaustive, and be made with great care, and he should keep posted, and at all times thoroughly prepared to make them. The doctor should examine every vital organ, consider every vital function, and test every condition of the subject, measuring and tracing each wound, noting every bruise or lesion, and prepare himself to tell affirmatively the conditions found, and also, so far as the vital functions and organs are concerned, to tell what did not exist. He should not hesitate to refer to his medical books and charts for suggestions and assistance. In cases of suspected or possible murder or foul play, he should call in the prosecuting attorney for aid and di rection. The sole end of such examinations is to ascertain the actual facts, and to dis cover the unbiased truth with "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge." The medical profession has more to do in practical affairs with that mysterious relation existing between the material and the imma terial, between the mind and the body, than any other vocation. The doctor must deal with both, and he should study the mind and mental action as thoroughly as he studies the body and bodily action. He should be as constant and as close a student of psychology and mental phenomena as of neurology and pathology. There is no department of medical science in which the general practitioner is called as an expert wit ness more frequently than in cases involving insanity and mental competency, and he should endeavor to become an expert in fact, upon those questions. The doctor on the witness stand should never hesitate to answer, " I do not know," if such is the fact. General Alger,' while speaking of his admission to the bar, once told this story upon himself. " The examin ing committee," said the general, " asked me only three questions. I answered the first question the best I knew. The committee
