The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-19
Expert Testimony.

IL mas long Deen recognized fact
that expert testimony is about the
most unsatisfactory that is admissible
in court proceedings. Contrary to the
general rule, experts testify not merely
to facts within their knowledge, but
to their opinions based upon facts
They even go farther ami give their
opinions upon hypothetical statements
of facts.
The nature of the testimony admits
of many possibilities of error. Like
any other witness, the expert may be
mistaken as to the facts; he may be
wllfully corrupt the same as any other;
he may be so biased or prejudiced as
to color his judgment, or in the alb
sence of any such feeling he may still
honestly err.
The two last named are the chief
dangers, for in general, it may be as
sumed that they are close observers of
facts, and honest men. But the *
pert, and particularly the mining cx-
pert, usually enters a case upon a re-
tainer, the same as a lawyer does He
gets his first impression as to the mer-
its of the controversy from his en-
ployer. and his sympathies are at once
enlisted upon that side. Almost un-
Quoted and his opinions formed along
the lines of his sympathetic desires.
This is made the easier by the circum-
stance that in disputed cases where
expert testimony is needed, there is
nearly always room for some difference
of opinion For example, in the case
now before Judge Clancy, one of the
experts testified that there is always
nm or ae
the boundaries of a lode.
A retained expert is looking for facts
to sustain his side of the case, just as
the lawyer searches for authorities in
support of his legal contentious When
the lawyer finds what he considers
abundant law to make good his eli
ent's case he frequently suspends mis-
researches and either overlooks or I'M
derrates considerable law upon the
other side which may have an impor-
tant bearing. So with the expert
When he finds what he wants he some
times stops, easily persuading himself
that what lies beyond the range Of his
examination is immaterial, although it
may well be that if he had gone a lit
tile farther he would have made dis
coveries calculated to modify his views.
class Of testimony is quite forcefully IL
Illustrated by the great mining litigation
now on in Butte 1t is clear that upon
many important and material points
In controversy the experts of the de-
pendant will stand Numerically opposed
to those Of the plaintiff. That is al
ready plainly indicated. And yet the
presumption is that all are competent
and honest, and it Is certain that all
have had full opportunity to examine
the ground in dispute. A number of
the witnesses have testified that their
opinions have undergone marked
changes within the last year or two,
as the result of further development
They seemed to be about as positive
in their former testimony as they are
now, and this suggests the possibility
fed by. further development.
However, in these cases and others
where scientific questions are to be
determined, there is no other kind of
testimony available, and we shall have
TO rely upon the intelligence of the
courts and juries to segregate the truth
from the error, to the end that Justice
may be done. When two men testify
in direct opposition TO each other, both
cannot be right, although both may be
experts" The court or jury must de-
eide which shows the most thorough
knowledge and the greater fairness, for
upon those two things the case should
turn.