he prisoner, as it is his sworn duty to do, and obtain his
release.

"But _per contra_, when these eminent medical men discover, within the
tissues of the deceased, plain evidences of the fact that a crime has
been consummated, it then becomes the duty of the District Attorney to
prosecute the accused, and to produce, before a jury of his
countrymen, the evidence which these gentlemen of science have
discovered. And this class of evidence is not only valuable, and
pertinent, but it is indispensable. Without the assistance of experts,
it would be almost impossible to convict a man of murder, by the use
of poison. The pistol, the knife, and other weapons, all leave wounds
discernible by the eyes of all. But poison works insidiously, and is
unseen. As deadly as the bullet, it operates not only without noise,
but in skilful hands the death may simulate that caused by known
diseases, so that even eminent physicians might sign a burial permit,
as did Dr. Fisher in this case, without a suspicion of the presence of
the poison. But suspicion having been aroused, by the aid of science
it is now possible to search microscopically into the tissues of the
victim, and find every trace of poison if one has been used. And if,
gentlemen, able men of science, prominent in their specialties, and
honored by their professional brethren as well as by the community in
which they dwell, make an impartial investigation of this nature, and
report to you that they have found poison actually present, and in
quantities which would have proved fatal, I submit it to your
intelligence, gentlemen, is not that expert testimony of the most
important character? Can we assail such evidence with the cry of bias,
merely because it comes within the general category of expert
testimony? Certainly not. You will therefore forget entirely the
anathema which Mr. Bliss has delivered against experts, for though
true enough against the class, it does not apply in this instance.

"Before dismissing this phase of the subject, I must say a few words
in defence of Professor Orton. Mr. Bliss pointed out to you that when
an expert is replying to direct examination he answers readily,
whereas, when answering the cross-examining lawyer, he is more
cautious. This is true; but, gentlemen, what does that signify? Simply
that having told the truth, the witness is compelled to defend himself
against the traps that will be set for him by the opposite side. He
knows in advance th