be willing to bear all
kinds of arrogance for the public good. In the first place, many
thoroughly competent experts in any department of science distinctly
and peremptorily refuse to be mixed up in any affair which may expose
them to cross examination. Many experts will investigate a matter,
give a report of their conclusions, but absolutely refuse to appear in
court.

Another not very edifying spectacle is that of paid handwriting
experts standing in court and contradicting each other, or pretending
to contradict in the interests of their respective clients, is not
exactly right. These men would change places and reverse positions and
arguments if necessary. Men of the world are tempted to say that
"Science can lay but little claim to certainty in demonstrating the
truth or falsity of handwriting and the whole procedure is more a mass
of doubtful speculations than a body of demonstrable truths." But it
must be remembered that a professional expert must be paid for his
services, and always tell the truth as it appears to him.

It is clearly seen that our present method of dealing with experts
regarding disputed handwriting is found to be on all sides not just
exactly satisfactory. Oftentimes the public is skeptical and many
honest and thorough experts are scandalized. The bench and bar share
this feeling but unfortunately are disposed to blame the individual
rather than the system.

There is no question but what this unanimity of dissatisfaction will
vanish as soon as a remedy is seriously proposed. To that, however, we
must come unless we are willing to dispense with expert evidence
altogether.

It is contended by many that an expert should be the adviser of the
court, not acting in the interest of either party in a lawsuit. Above
all things an expert ought to be exempt from cross-examination. His
evidence, or rather his conclusions, should be given in writing and
accepted just as the decisions of the bench on points of law.

Opinions of eminent judges have differed widely respecting the
reliance to be placed upon testimony founded upon expert comparisons
of handwriting, but it should be remembered that those opinions have
been no more varied than has been the character and qualifications of
the experts by whose testimony they have been called forth.

It is too true that very frequently persons have been allowed to give
testimony as experts who were utterly without experience in any
calling that tends to best