It is with some temerity that I attempt to discuss this somewhat threadbare subject in these pages. In recent years so much has been said about it and yet so little, for practically all of the papers revolve in about the same circle and it is rare that any one of them throws any new light upon the questions involved. The most striking thing perhaps about the whole discussion is the vehemence with which everybody denounces the present method of procedure and the comparative impotence of those same persons when presented with the necessity of a constructive attitude of mind and asked what they are going tb do about it. My only excuse for discussing nt upon this occasion is that I have been forced for a considerable period of time, not only to come into practical relations with the operations of the methods of procedure in criminal cases involving expert testillony, but that I have been forced in addition to give all of the questions involved a considerable deal of thought in my service for two or three years upon a committee of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. I have referred to the discrepancy between the attitude of the majority of persons who believe the system wrong and would tear it down, and the results of their labors when they endeavored to build anything in its place. This is a psychological situation with which we are familiar, and must necessarily mean that the destructive attitude is an emotional one, that the reasons for the feelings that exist against the present method of procedure are not clearly perceived, and that therefore no adequate constructive efforts can issue. In proof of this proposition, namely, that the attitude against the system is an emotional one, and that the reasons for the emotions are not clearly perceived, I may cite the frequent efforts of the two professions-law and medicine -each to lay the blame upon the other, while the general public see in every criminal trial, where the defense of insanity is introduced, a perfectly clear case of flagrant attempt to avoid the legal consequences of crime by hiring expert witnesses to testify to the insanity of the defendant. It is needless for me to disprove in this Journal the justifi-