establish our knowledge of the protective power of successful vaccination over small-pox; and

Whereas, The first factor of successful vaccination is reliable virus; and

Whereas, The demand for bovine virus has so excited the cupidity of some wicked and ignorant people as to cause them to sell for reliable bovine virus imperfect matter that was either improperly cultivated, impure, degenerated, or adulterated bovine virus, or other matter either inert or poisonous; and

Whereas, The general practitioner of medicine must rely for reliable vacine virus on the knowledge and skill of the party who cultivates, and the integrity of the party of whom he obtains it; and

Whereas, There should be a supervision by some competent authority of all establishments cultivating bovine virus; therefore,

Resolved, By the Wayne County (Ind.) Medical Society, that the Indiana State Medical Society is hereby requested to exert its influence with the American Medical Association to induce it to procure a law requiring the National Board of Health to exercise an inspecting authority over every establishment claiming to cultivate bovine virus, and that it be declared to be unlawful for any establishment to distribute bovine virus, claiming it to be reliable, unless such establishment have the endorsement of the National Board of Health.

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the resolutions adopted at the last meeting of the Indiana State Medical Society.

[SEAL.]

June 1, 1882.

E. S. ELDER, M. D., Secretary Indiana State Medical Society.

A discussion ensued on the subject of vaccine virus, during which Dr. JAMES F. HIBBERD, of Indiana, cited a number of cases of poisoning resulting from inoculation from impure and diseased virus. Remarks were made by Dr. AZEL AMES, of Massachusetts, who spoke in favor of the formation of a national association of virus producers, properly regulated and under constant supervision of its members. The subject was further alluded to by Dr. THADDEUS M. STEVENS, of Indiana; Dr. FOSTER PRATT, of Michigan; Dr. D. C. ENGLISH, New Jersey; Dr. WILLIAMS, Pittsburgh; Dr. EUGENE GRISSOM, North Carolina. Dr. HOSMER A. JOHNSON, of the National Board of Health, spoke at some length of the evils arising from impure virus, and the difficulties met with in procuring bovine virus that ha‍d not been contaminated. He stated that in Illi

nois, last year, the industry had been carried to a great extent, virus having been sold to the extent of two million points, at the rate of ten cents per point, or a total money value of two hundred thousand dollars.

After an hour and a half had been passed in discussing the vaccine question, the meeting gave its attention to a paper by Dr. John G. Lee, coroner's physician of Philadelphia, on the subject of suicide in his city and county.

On motion of Dr. DAVENPORT, of Minnesota, the paper was referred to the Committee of Publication.

A paper on the subject of Mortality in the Army, by Brevet Colonel JOSEPH R. SMITH, A. M., M. D., Medical Director of the Department of Texas, was referred to Dr. HIBBERD, to report to-morrow afternoon; and at 5.30 P. M. the Section adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, June 7, 1882.

The Section reconvened at Workmen's Hall at 3 P. M., Dr. GIHON in the chair.

Dr. HIBBERD, to whom was referred the paper on sickness and mortality in the army, by Dr. Smith, U. S. A., submitted a brief report, showing the sanitary condition of the army as demonstrated by statistics from the paper.

His abstract of the paper is as follows :

MR. CHAIRMAN:-Surgeon Smith opens his communication with two questions; namely,

First.-Has State medicine progressed within the past few years? and

Second. Has its progress been marked by a diminution of disease and death?

And he has contributed such answer to his questions as he found in an analysis of the Surgeon-General's reports of disease and death in the army from 1871 to 1881, both inclusive, that is, eleven years.

He presents a table of eleven columns, giving the particulars for each year under the heading of each column.

The eleventh column gives the mean strength of the army at 25,599; the fourth column gives the sick rate per year per 1,000 at 1,598; that is, every man in the army was sick over 11⁄2 times per year, and the death rate was 8.71 per 1,000 of mean strength per year, while the death rate for the sick was

5.63 per 1,000. The sickness among the white and colored troops was as 1,551 of the former to 1,498 of the latter, while deaths were as 845 whites to 1,104 colored.

It is to be noted that these statistics are compiled from cases of sickness as distinct from wounds and accidents, and the reason for beginning the analysis with the year 1871 is because that year a new method of report was begun under fresh orders from the Surgeon-General.

Both the numbers of cases of diseases and death vary considerably in the different years; but the author closes with this paragraph: "Not adopting, however, unreservedly, any conclusions from the figures of this table, I may still say that, as far as they go, these figures seem to show an advance in army sanitation and therapeutics in the past eleven years. Fewer men in proportion are now taken sick, fewer men now die than were taken sick and did die in eleven years ago."

I advise that the paper be not read, but be recommended for publication.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES F. HIBBERD,

Committee.

The subject of Medical Evidence having been made the special order of the day, the meeting listened to some interesting remarks by Dr. CHARLES II. BOARDMAN, of Minnesota, on the subject of the Testimony of Expert Witnesses in Court.

Dr. C. H. BOARDMAN, of St. Paul, spoke as follows:

The subject of medical expert testimony interests, or should interest, us, not only because of its intrinsic importance, but also because under the existing system our appearance in court as experts is a source of embarrassment, and even, sometimes, of humiliation. If we can do anything to remove the opprobrium which rests upon us when acting in the capacity in question, we shall gain credit for ourselves and for our testimony, and shall contribute something to the cause of justice. In earlier times, physicians were not summoned, as now, by the counsel for the opposing parties to the suit, but their aid was invoked by the court itself to assist it in determining questions whose settlement required medical knowledge and proficiency; they appeared on behalf neither of defendant nor plaintiff, but rather as amici curia, whose function was simply to enlighten the court, and not to assist either the prosecution or defense. Their office, both dignified and appropriate, was enlarged after a time, when they were called upon to express opinions upon real or hypothetical cases, as well as to testify as to scientific facts; and still later, as the practice of the courts relaxed its rigor in dealing with accused persons, it came to pass that experts were called on behalf of both parties to the

suit, and so grew up the system which substitutes partisanship and prejudice for scientific accuracy.

The ideal expert shares to some extent the duties of the jury; his office is to interpret for them that with which, unassisted, they are not competent to deal; and to do this impartially, that his opinion may afford a stable foundation for their verdict; the expert de facto is an advocate whose chief concern is to serve, not so much justice, as the interests of the litigant who has engaged, and, not infrequently, paid for his services. You are well aware that it is almost, if not absolutely, impossible to form and to maintain a just and impartial opinion when one is approached thus with a purely ex parte statement, and when, as the trial progresses, one's interest becomes aroused and there comes into play, perhaps, rather a desire to justify and uphold a preconceived opinion than a sincere intention to arrive at the absolute truth which lies somewhere in the case at issue.

I say you are well enough aware of the evils of which I complain; I need not enlarge upon or emphasize them; what chiefly concerns us is to devise a fitting remedy. Such a remedy has been sought in other countries with varying success; those measures, however, which seem really effectual, are so much at variance with the spirit of our institutions that we cannot hope for their adoption, at present at least, in this country. But there has suggested itself to a number of those who have given some thought to the subject, both lawyers and physicians, a method which promises, not, perhaps, to make our system of procuring and offering medical expert testimony all that it should be, but at least to afford some relief for some of its more grotesque inconsistencies. The plan is simply a provision that expert witnesses should be called by the court rather than by the parties litigant, and that they shall hear all the evidence upon both sides before expressing their opinion. It is understood, of course, that all witnesses are subpoenaed at present by the court; that is, it is the power of the court which compels their attendance; but they are summoned " on behalf of" this or that person; and the plan recommended provides only that they shall not be approached before the trial by counsel with ingeniously framed statements, but shall enter the court-room with unprejudiced minds, and prepared to weigh the evidence impartially and so arrive at an honest conclusion. I do not say that this is never done, or that it cannot be done; but I do say that its accomplishment is among the rarest of events, and I believe that it would be much more likely to occur if the system in question be adopted than under the present régime.

I may say, perhaps, that the defendant in a suit would, of course, retain the right to summon his own expert witnesses,

if he desires to do so. Various objections have been made to the scheme; for example, that it is unconstitutional; that it would confer too much power upon the court; and that too much weight would attach to testimony procured in this way. These all admit of ready, and, as I think, conclusive replies; and I doubt whether any valid argument can be made against the proposition.

It is not supposed to be a panacea, but it is confidently believed that its adoption would serve to remove some of the disadvantages under which we now labor, and to substitute a dispassionate and impartial expression of opinion for the partisanship and prejudice which characterize so much of the testimony of physicians. An endorsement of the scheme by this association would aid us in our efforts to secure its adoption by our Legislature, and I hope, therefore, that it may commend itself to your favor.

Dr. R. C. KEDZIE, of Michigan, thought there was a broad distinction between questions of fact and opinion. The speaker had had his full share of experience as an expert witness, and was heartily tired of a system which made the expert a tool in the hands of politicians and lawyers. He thought that too dangerous a latitude had been given the matter, and hoped that it would be more strictly guarded by law hereafter.

Dr. C. H. HUGHES, of Missouri, concurred in the opinion that greater protection should be offered expert witnesses. He believed that the mind of the average professional physician was as free from bias as that of the average judicial mind, and he deprecated any theory that would place the general intelligence on a lower plane. He believed it just as possible for a true physician to give expert testimony in favor of the side on which he had not been summoned, if he considered that the honor of science and his profession were at issue.

Dr. CARMAX, of Michigan, thought that when a physician was called into court it should be first ascertained whether he was an expert or only a witness. The speaker alluded to the fact that men frequently testified who were not qualified to give expert evidence; physicians were such only in name. He thought that physicians should go into court independent of either side of the case, with liberty to testify on the basis of scientific or qualified judgment. He hoped that the time would soon come when medical experts should be qualified by the State, when the matter of giving evidence in court would be raised above its present low level.