lls. I will show you principally, that what the expert
testifies under cross-examination is more likely to be true, than what
he tells the friendly lawyer on his own side.

"Now, when I asked Professor Orton whether Bright's disease would act
as a cause to facilitate the accumulation of morphine in the system,
he answered, 'I have never seen such a case.' That, gentlemen, is the
set of words which I beg of you to analyze. Why did the Professor use
just this language? For, mark you, it is a well-studied answer. Let us
suppose that this eminent toxicologist had made an exhaustive series
of experiments, which had proved, beyond all cavil, that the commonly
accepted idea among physicians is wrong, and that Bright's disease
will not effect an accumulation of morphine. How gladly would he have
said 'No' to my question! How positively would he have asserted that
Bright's disease would not have the effect which we claim! Therefore,
that he does not use any such dogmatic denial shows logically and
conclusively that he has no such knowledge. He does not know, beyond
all doubt, that Bright's disease will not modify the action of this
poison. But we can see more in this answer. Suppose that, lacking
absolute knowledge, he had still a firm conviction. He would then most
probably have said, 'It is my opinion that Bright's disease does not
modify the drug's action.' But, gentlemen, he had not even a
conviction of this kind. On the contrary, he must either have known,
or else have leaned towards the belief that such an accumulation is
possible, otherwise he would not have said just what he did say: 'I
have not seen such a case.' 'I have not seen such a case'! Why, the
very words suggest that such a case has existed. More--that the
Professor had heard of such cases, and believed in them. Perhaps he
hoped that this evasive answer would be accepted as final. In that
case, gentlemen, it might have served, in your minds, as well as a
negative reply. But, gentlemen, a lawyer's mind is necessarily trained
to the quick appreciation of situations like this. As soon as he had
said that he had never seen such a case, I was prompted by intuition
to ask if he had not heard of them. Then the fat was in the fire, and
we had an admission, however reluctantly given, that he had heard of
them, and from competent authority. But the very attempt on the part
of this witness to parry the question, and evade a full and truthful
reply, carries a conviction wi