often forget the many-sidedness of man. The mental pathologist is dazzled by the discov eries regarding the physical basis of mind and his mental equation thereupon blinds his judgment. On the other hand, lawyers make too much use of logic, forgetting that the "life of the law has not been logic, but ex perience." (Chief Justice O. W. Holmes, "The Common Law.") "Fearful of rights which show no precedent, impervious to wrongs which time has hallowed, laden with responsibilities broad as life itself is broad, the law is most conservative in relinquishing error and in embracing truth." (Edward P. Payson.) Can these opposing forces be turned into a common stream of usefulness? Can this medico-legal conflict be brought to a settle ment which will be neither a mere working truce nor a concession to eclecticism, but an agreement based on reason and scientific data? Mr. Edward P. Payson suggests a possi ble answer in his scholarly and interesting book on "Suggestions Towards an Applied Science of Sociology." It is to the effect that, without admitting or denying the spirit uality of man, the question of mental re sponsibility in criminal law can best be solved by eliminating from it its animistic assumptions, and by making it a science of only sensible facts. A careful examination of Mr. Payson's book will show that his sug gestions are not a concession to materialism, but an attempt to put criminal law on a sci entific and practical basis. But, independently of this, it will be one step towards an agreement, if law and medi
cine will become mutually more tolerant, and will give to their opponents' views se rious and impartial study. The language of Dr. Carlos F. Macdonald is none too strong when he tells lawyers that "to set up a legal test or standard of insan ity which is not in harmony with the teach ings of medical science is a disgrace to jurisprudence and a travesty upon justice." (American Journal of Insan ity, Vol. LVL, 1899.) On the other hand, doctors would do well to ponder over Mr. Payson's words when he says that law by its conservatism has "shunned many a quag mire, detected many a false light and stood fast against many an onslaught of ism and ology on the road of human progress." Let neither the doctors nor the lawyers draw an impassable and inflexible line around their respective fields of investigation, but let them work in common for a common end. No mere doctor, and no mere lawyer, will be the one master that will solve the problem of mental responsibility in law; neither will it be a mere great specialist, nor a mere great scholar of one science. The Great Pacifica tor in this medico-legal conflict will be he who, truckling to neither party, respecting both, but fearing neither, will serenely and persistently strive for the study of man as he is in his many aspects, not as the mani kin of a given school, nor as the idol of a close forum; it will be he, who, knowing the dangers and impracticability of endeavoring to solve human problems by adhering to theories and ideals, is nevertheless confident that without theories and ideals the hope and certainty of progress are idle and vain boasts.
