The National tribune., 1899-06-15

true that the Secretary can not be expected
to be well versed in All sciences, and that he
should seek through authorized channels
the views of experts upon scientific matters
But 1t must be remembered that in review
ing cases on appeal the Secretary must vir-
tualiy sit as Judge upon matters of law
and as jury upon matters of fact The
opinions OF the Medical Referee as to medi-
cal matters are, 10 the Secretary. purely ex-
pert evidence. produced in order that he
may arrive at an honest and intelligent
conclusion. These opinions go to the facts
IN a case and not TO the law, ard thus they
come before the Secretary acting as a iurv
IN trying facts. The opinions of medical
experts are not conclusive, but are to be
weighed by the jury like all other evidence.
dawson on Expert and Opinion Evidence,
254.D
"The Medical Referee states in his onin.
ion of May /, 1899, that cues
tons Of pathological results can only he
determined by persons of medi-
cal education, qualified by reason Of a COM
petent knowledge OF pathology, 10 fully ap-
preciate the history of the case and make
d,fferential diagnosis
This IS :rne so far as procedure in the
Pension Bureau is concerned, and it is
sound procedure; but so far as ii affects
the Secretary, it should not be forgotten
that the Sccretary's duty in considering
an appeal is vastly different from the duty
OF the Medical Referee acting as adviser TO
the Commissioner of Pensions. But even
so far as this is concerned, the Commits
sloner OF Pensions is not bound by the opin-
ion OF the Medical Referee. He can over
rule him, upon purely medical questions, if
III his judgment the facts in a given case
warrant it. Samuel Hook, F. D., 1867. J
IL the secretary were bound by the opinion
OF the Medical Referee upon any question,
1t would in pension claims make the Medi.
cal Referee the sole arbi;er of many cases.
and preclude an appeal from having anv
virtue. And further, such a rule would do
violence to all known law Juries are
daily called upon to decide the most abb
struse and difficult questions of science
when perhaps not single juryman has
any personal knowledge as TO the partcu-
lar science involved, or to the question
/ arising hereunder. Yet the jury must,
under the law, decide these difficult ques-
1onS by the aid Of the testimony presented.
In IKE manner must the Secretary, when
called upon to decide q question of fact
! decide such question impartially and with
out favor, upon all of the evidence present
ed; giving tie expert evidence only such
weight as in his judgment it is entitled to
He is charged by law with such duty, and
such duty must lie fulfilled.
Il again reiterate that the opinions of the
Medical Referee upon purely medical mat
/ tiers are of the highest class of evidence
and the Department has invariably giver
them the greatest consideration. But they
are, nevertheless, simply expert evidence
and are only followed and given sucl
weight as, in the judgment OF the Secre
tary, they are entitled TO. The wisdom o
such fact is apparent in the case at bar. Th
present Medical Referee differs from hi
predecessor upon the question of Patio
logical relation. If the Secretary wa
bound by the opinion Of the former Medica
Referee, the opinion of the present ofIicia
: upon TIC issue would have to go for naughi
in the interest OF justice, that the opinion q
the present Medical Referee lie obtained
and could thus set expert evidence agafns
expert evidence and arrive at a more jus
: conclusion. / have done so in this case
All questions. on appeal, must be detcl
mined by the Secretary upon all of the ev
. dence, using the opinions of the Medicf
J i,eferee as an aid in arriving at a conclr
| sion when the facts in a case involve med
cal questions. In fact, am quite sure thi
1.-THE Medical Referee agrees that such pr,