The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-11-11

The fundamental difficulty as re-
CARDS the present system of taking
expert testimony appears to lie in
the antithetical relation that exists
between the scientific and the legal
attitude of mind. The life of a scien-
tfc man is or should be devoted to
the search for truth and what is just
ass important, to the PRONUNCIATION of
truth. He should subject all evidence
to the most critical and impartial
scrutiny and be constantly on his
guard against becoming an advocate, |
even for his own conclusions. Tradi-
ton and precedent have no weight |
with him, and authority, although en-
titled to respect when founded on OBJ |
servance and mastery of the princi- |
pies of scientific method, does not bind !
him. The lawyer, on the other hand, /
while his intellectual integrity may
be unimpeachable and while he may /
employ the methods of science in GER
tain branches of his profession, is, in
ordinary practice, an advocate It is
his business to win the case for his
client and his efforts toward that end
consist largely in a search for prece-
dent in the form of prior decisions He
is confessedly and properly a partisan
and searches for those facts that will
help his case. He may also seek for
those facts that are opposed to his
clients contention not like the scien-
tifc man, to make them known, but
to arm himself against their possible
as evidence by opposing
counsel. In other words. he may ear
his purpose to speak the
Truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. His endeavors in every
way possible to create an atmosphere
favorable to the contention of his eli
ent and to play upon the feelings as
well as the reason of the jury These
two attitudes of mind are so diametr- I
'ally opposed that it is rather remark '
able that practising lawyers. when
'aised to the bench should be able to
adjust their mental processes to the T
udicial attitude.
In view of the fact that many emin-
mt and honorable men of science have T
accepted positions as expert wit t
lesses il is not justifable to assert I
oundly and without qualification that
UGH acceptance was morally wrong u
the intent of wrong doing n
las usually been absent and many
UGH witnesses may have been thor 81
ob1N convinced Of 1,a f,,l II
righteousness of the cause espoused
nevertheless, I believe that it must b
e admitted that the geologist who Ct
ecomes an expert witness for one n
ide in mining litigation places him p
elf in a scientifically false position. HI
Recently, in an interesting paper, '
augustus Locke has suggested that
lining biologists So called, might be
ivided into two professional groups
court biologists and ore hunting ge- fr
Ogists. He points out that the men ii
u qualifications for the two branches in
the profession are not the same to
lat the court geologist must have tie
he mind of an advocate, whereas the re
e hunting geologist should have the wi
dicial temperament. He cites the ne
I'm Orlu V. Butte & Superior lawsuit tn
1915 in which five eminent geolo- a
SITS on one side were unanimous ca
'ainst five equally eminent and pl'
luminous biologists on the other
de, both as to matters of fact and to
ference or Opinion. He puts the tr;
sc as favorably as possible for the -
pert witnesses when he maintains
at this unanimity in difference, so
tie creditable to science, involves no ne
rsonal dishonesty. He explains It tes
unconscious prejudice.
Perhaps there was no dishonesty
the ordinary moral sense: perjury sal
a harsh word. But If IT be consid- roc
ID that the difference sprang from
prejudice is there not
IRE subtle intellectual honesty that are
violated when a scientific man. pal
tn the example of this and other
SEES before him, permits himself TO r
placed in a position wherein he are
ows he may have to be conscious the