New-York tribune., 1905-02-05
EXPERT WITNESSES.

Among the various bills now pending in the
Massachusetts, Legislature few are OF more
far reaching interest than the one which pro-
poses to regulate the employment OF expert VIII
nesses in the courts of that commonwealth
This bill provides, in brief, that unless the
court award larger sum in a given caSe ho
expert witness shall receive larger SUM ior
his services than the ordinary witness 1ees'
that only three experts shall be allowed 10
testify on either side upon the same ISSUE eX-
cept In cases of homicide, and IN the latter Tue
court also shall appoint one or more eAperts
TO Investigate and testify concerning issues re-
quiring expert knowledge and shall 1lx their
compensation which is to be paid by the
county where the Indictment was found; and
that these regulations shall apply only to wit
nesses testifying to matters of opinion, as dis
tinct from generally accepted facts or deduc-
tions of science.
The necessity for some such measure Is suf-
ficiently apparent, not only to lawyers Dut TO
every one who has had occasion TO study the
progress Of cases in which expert testimony has
played much of a part. Aside from the ex-
pense involved, there are many reasons why
the extensive use of expert evidence should not
be encouraged. In the first place, 1t Is often
q question whether SO-called expert evidence
has in truth, a genuinely expert value. No
clan as to the diagnosis of disease of doubt
full character is worth vastly more than the
opinion of a layman. and no one doubts that
in a matter of purely surgical diagnosis the
opinion of an experienced and expert surgeon
Is worth more than that of the average gen
eral practitioner. To that extent we all be-
neve in expert evidence. But when two or
more experts practically disagree with two or
more other experts on point. who shall de-
cide?" Take the case Of handwriting experts,
for example. Their frequent disagreement upon
given points would almost lead one to suspect
that the sum total of their combined opinion
on those points is seldom of much more value
than would be the opinion of single non
expert witness who should happen to be init
mately acquainted with the handwriting of the
person whose authorship of a particular piece
of writing might be in question. In either case
there would remain doubt, but how much more
doubt in the one case than in the other?
Assuming, however, that no class of expert
witnesses should be entirely excluded in cases
where such evidence is at all pertinent, and
thus much must be assumed, it is still of the
highest Importance so to regulate the condt-
tonS attending the admission of such evidence
that no expert shall be tempted into partisan
ship The petition accompanying the bill above
referred TO uses pretty strong language upon
this point recitiag that, 'in fact such witnesses
often appear to have been retained much
las the counsel in the case; and, again. that
lin many cases efforts are made by one of the
''litigants to engage all available experts on a
given subject and thus, so to speak, corner
1.-The market" Hence the desira blity of Civ
ing TO the court special powers and of secur-
ing at least a modicum of absolutely impartial
expert testimony whenever such may be called
for. Whether the bill as now filed or in an
amended form will reach vote or finally be
adopted by the Massachusetts Legislature re-
mains to be seen, but that some legislation in
that direction would be wholesome and would
tend to counteract any abuse of the right TO
introduce expert testimony is hardly disputa-
bic