Show science of ml mining nl ng geology geology y and expert court geologists BY F L RANSOME the fundamental difficulty as regards the present system of taking expert testimony appears to lie in the antithetical relation that exists between the scientific and the legal attitude of mind the life of a scientific man is or should be devoted to the search for truth and what is just as important to the promulgation of truth he should subject all evidence to the most critical and impartial scrutiny and be constantly on his guard against becoming el an advocate even of his own conclusions tradition and precedent have no weight with him and authority although entitled to respect when founded on observance and mastery of the principles of scientific method does not bind him the lawyer on the other hand while his intellectual integrity may be unimpeachable and while he may employ the methods of science in certain branches of his profession is in ordinary practice an advocate it is his business to win the case for his client and his efforts toward that end consist largely in a search for precedent in the form of prior decisions he is confessedly and properly a partisan and searches for those thoe facts that will help his case he may also seek for those facts that are opposed to his clients contention not like the scientific man to make them known but to arm himself against their possible introduction as evidence by opposing counsel in other words he may earnestly seek the truth but it is not necessarily his purpose to speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the his endeavors in every way possible are to create an atmosphere favorable to the contention of his client and to play upon the feelings as well as the reason of the jury these two attitudes of mind are so diametrically opposed that it is rather remarkable that practicing lawyers when raised to the bench should be able to adjust their mental processes to the judicial attitude in view of the fact that many eminent and honorable men of science have accepted positions as expert witnesses it is not justifiable to assert roundly and without qualification that such acceptance was morally wrong certainly the intent of wrongdoing wrong doing has usually been absent and many such witt nesses may have been thoroughly convinced of the inherent righteousness of the cause espoused nevertheless I 1 believe that it must be admitted that the geologist who becomes an expert witness for one side in mining litigation places himself in a scientifically false position recently in an interesting paper augus retracts from economic geology locke has suggested that mining geologists so called might be divided into two professional groups court geologists and ore hunting geologists he points out that the mental qualifications for the two branches of the profession are not the same that the court geologist must have the mind of an advocate whereas the ore hunting in geologist should have the judicial temperament pe he cites the elm orlu v butte superior lawsuit of 1915 in which five eminent geologists on one side were unanimous ag against ainest five equally eminent and unanimous geologists on the other side both as to fo matters of fact and to inference or opinion he puts the case as favorably as possible for the expert witnesses when he maintains that this unanimity is difference so little creditable to science involves no personal dishonesty he explains it by unconscious prejudice perhaps there was no dishonesty in the ordinary moral sense perjury is a harsh word but if it be considered that the difference sprang from unconscious prejudice is there not a more subtle intellectual honesty that is violated when a scientific man with the example of this and other cases before him permits himself to be placed in a position wherein he knows he may have to be consciously dishonest or is at best likely to interpret facts through the spectacles of prejudice it is admitted that such work is not only profitable but is often intensely interesting and may give opportunity for scientific observations ions of value the temptation to engage in it may be very strong can a man who cherishes the highest ideals of scientific work afford to yield to it under the existing t practice of employing expert witnesses opinions on this question will diff differ er but my own belief is that in general he can not it has been said that a witness before he undertakes a case may be sure of his ground As a rule no geologist can tell in advance what all the developments in a suit will be and it is doubtful whether a geological expert witness can escape being a partisan witness when he is employed by one of the litigants with the obvious intent that he shall help to win the case |