rdoned for reproducing
it in its completeness. It runs thus: "The first thing we do, let's kill
the lawyers." This is not at all the attitude of our profession toward
yours. On the contrary the most stupid charge that is ever laid to the
door of the medical man is that he intentionally, or ever either by luck
or intention, kills his patients. Ere the coffin-lid closes the doctor's
harvest is reaped, but how different it is with you gentlemen.
[Laughter.] Not more than a few days after the debt of nature has been
paid by the unfortunate patient, your harvest--and especially if he has
had the unusual fortune to make a will--begins, and oh! how we are
sometimes tempted to envy you. Through how many seasons this harvest
will be prolonged no one can foretell. That it will be carefully
garnered to the last we can fully rely upon.

There is perhaps only one state of circumstances under which the
medical man is likely to re-echo the sentiment, and that is when he
steps down from the witness-stand, having served as an "expert." You
lawyers have a duty to discharge to your clients which necessitates your
"taking a part." Even though a man be guilty, there may be "extenuating
circumstances," and it is your right, as it is your duty, "to do all
that lies within your power in his behalf." The "medical expert" should
go upon the stand in a purely judicial frame of mind, and as a rule I
believe he does. But by the manner in which questions are propounded to
him, and by the exercise of every little persuasive art incident to your
calling, he is inevitably led into taking "sides." He is surrounded by
circumstances that are to him entirely strange. He is more or less
annoyed and flurried by his surroundings, and then comes the necessity
of making a categorical answer to questions that are put to him more
especially upon the cross-examination, which cannot be correctly
answered categorically. Unfortunately in a profession like ours, in a
science of art like ours, it often is absolutely impossible to answer a
question categorically without conveying an erroneous impression to the
jury.

In addition to this, we are subjected at the close of the examination to
what you are pleased to term a "hypothetical question." The theory of
this "hypothetical question" is that it embraces or expresses in a few
words, and not always so very few either [laughter], the main features
of the case under consideration. In nine cases out of ten if the expert