Hence, in considering the value of expert testimony _in matters of medical jurisprudence_, it must be conceded, in the first instance, that the difference between the system prevailing in this country and in England, and that which prevails on the Continent, notably in Germany and France, has not tended to raise but to depress the value of such testimony in the first-named countries. In the latter countries, the experts upon medico-legal questions are officers of the court, or are treated as such. They form, in a sense, a part of the judicial system, and the expression of their opinions consequently carries with it great weight. Moreover, under the system which prevails there, it has been possible for men to be educated up to a high degree of skill and experience in the particular branches of physiological or psychological or physical investigations which they pursue, while here in America, and to a certain extent also in England, experts are such for other reasons, and by the operations of other causes, than the fact of their permanent employment in that capacity. As a general thing they become skilled in their profession or in the particular branches of it in which they practise as specialists, and are summoned to testify simply because they are selected by one party or another to a lawsuit. _Mr. Wharton’s View of this Question in the Main Hostile to the Prevailing System Here._—The effect of the methods which thus prevail has not been entirely to the advantage of the medical profession or of our courts. Wharton, in his work on “Evidence,” Section 454, observes upon this point: “When expert testimony was first introduced it was regarded with great respect. An expert was viewed as the representative of a science of which he was a professor, giving impartially its conclusions. Two conditions have combined to produce a material change in this relation. In the first place it has been discovered that no expert, no matter how learned and incorrupt, speaks for his science as a whole. Few specialties are so small as not to be torn by factions, and often the smaller the specialty the bitterer and more inflaming and distorting are the animosities by which these factions are possessed. Particularly is this the case in matters psychological, in which there is no hypothesis so monstrous that an expert cannot be found to swear to it on the stand, and to defend it with vehemence. ‘_Nihil tam absurdo_,’ which being literally translated means that there is nothing so absurd that the philosophers won’t say it! In the second place, the retaining of experts by a fee proportioned to the importance of their testimony is now as customary as is the retaining of lawyers. No court would take as testimony the sworn statement of the law given by counsel retained on a particular side, for the reason that the most high-minded men are so swayed by an employment of this kind as to lose the power of impartial judgment; and so intense is this conviction that