"'I have decided to take this method of procedure instead of a jury trial, because as a rule in trials by jury the case resolves itself into a battle of medical experts, and in my experience I have never witnessed a case where the testimony of the experts on one side was not directly contradicted by the testimony of as many or more experts on the other side. Where men specially trained in mental and nervous diseases disagree, how can it be expected that a jury of twelve laymen should agree? Such testimony has been very unsatisfactory to the jury and to the court, and generally very expensive to the community.'" "Worse than that. It has been a scandal to the medical profession, a source of travesty to judicial procedure and all too often a means of defeating the ends of justice. "The very course pursued by Judge Backus was advocated by President Gregory of the American Bar association not very long ago, and the outcome in this instance at least is such as to recommend its adoption by the bench wherever the statutes permit." * * * * * The Chicago Record-Herald said: "It is notorious that 'expert testimony' is too often confused and confusing testimony which jurors and judges feel themselves bound to disregard in favor of mere horse sense. The stated experts are matched or overmatched by the experts for the defense, and the conflict of 'scientific' testimony assumes in many cases the proportions of a public scandal. "Hence the 'Wisconsin idea' as applied by Judge Backus of Milwaukee, who is presiding over the trial of John Schrank, is an admirable one. Under a statute of Wisconsin a judge may summon a certain number of experts and make them officers of the court. They testify as such officers, and presumably the state pays them reasonable fees. Under such a plan as this there is no temptation to strain science in the interest of a long purse, and impartial opinions is likely to be the rule. "Statutes similar to that of Wisconsin are needed in all other states. 'Expert testimony' has long been a byword and reproach. Of course, under Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence no defendant can be deprived of the right to call witnesses of his own choosing, and after all a medical expert is only a witness who gives opinions instead of facts. Still, a law which authorizes the court to call truly impartial experts would not seem to be 'unconstitutional.' It is certainly not unfair or unreasonable from the lay point of view." * * * * * The Saturday Night of Toronto, Ont., said: