mployed alike by state and defense.

"The judge justified his procedure in these words, when instructing
the examining physicians:

"'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