August, 1926
INDUSTRIAL A-VD ENGINEERING CHEJIISTRY
873
NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE “Experts” Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: I t is not often t h a t anything moves me to “write an open letter to the editor,” but the letter of Ford W. Harris, on page 764 of the July issue of THIS JOURNAL calls for a reply. I t tends t o show t h a t scientific experts and their testimony are renal and need to be reformed. This, in my opinion, is not true of experts in the exact sciences, theoretical or applied. Even the methods of reform therein suggested seem to me far from practical, because they are based on a very limited understanding of the technical expert’s functions. Instead of it being “his sole duty to elucidate the laws of nature and the like,” I find his functions to be threefold. He must determine what the essential facts of the case really are, and how natural law relates to them as causes and effects, and he must be prepared to prove his results, Each of these requires hard, painstaking work. It is, however, particularly the lack of inteFity ascribed generally to laryers, chemists, engineers, and “most men” upon which I wish to comment. M y honest esteem for the integrity of the scientific and technical experts and the lawyers who have worked with or against me, makes me feel that i t is only fair to give your readers a higher (1 think more accurate) estimate of human nature than ILIr. Harris’ letter presents. If his “years of experience” actually make him believe that “most men are willing t o lie a. little for a little money,” I can’t help feeling sorry for him, for he: must have been terribly unfortunate in his acquaintances. One expert (chemist) whom I have known well for years went over his case notes for me and advises t h a t the record stands about as follows : total cases presented for consideration, 50; rejected without hesitation, 10; considered and rejected as unsound, 14; investigated and found t o be unwarranted or very doubtful and advised t o settle or withdraw, 6; finally prepared for trial, 20, of which 12 were actually tried. It has been my good fortune to work with or against more than a hundred lawyers and as many experts, from Maine to California, from 1910 to date, on 8 civil or criminal cases before state courts, and 48 cases (mostly patents) before the federal courts. Of these cases about 10 were settled and 10 withdrawn, leaving about 36 actually tried. The trials varied from one or two days to four, five, and nine weeks. So I am, perhaps, somewhat qualified by experience to speak of how lawyers conduct their cases and how experts testify, outside of hIr. Harris’ circle of acquaintances. In my limited experience I do not think 5 (certainly not 10) per cent of the lawyers in either argument or brief have made statements that were in the least untrue when taken as they properly should be-as statements of one side with respect to its evidence and its case. A few of them have paid their “respects” to me as a witness in terms far from complimentary t o my intelligence, competence, and judgment, but from their honest point of view they were warranted in so doing by what they and their experts believed to be the facts and theory of the case and by the necessity of presenting their case. They ha1.e been fair as a rule. Under our system of court procedure each lawyer is supposed to present his client’s case, not his opponent’s. If a defendant cannot provide his own counsel, the court will appoint one to see t h a t his case is properly presented. It is the duty of the lawyer to put his client’s best foot forward, but not to manufacture either a centipede or a mermaid. Many lawyers are extremely scrupulous. I have known those who have unhesitatingly abandoned what seemed like a fair line of argument or
attack because their technical advisers pointed out that the technical facts or a fair interpretation of the opposing witnesses’ statements did not warrant such an attack. I know many lawyers to whom I would not think of sending a client who was trying to sue without just cause or trying t o defend without at least a n open question of his being right. I know more than one who has declined to take a case he thought unfair. M y experience with experts has been very much the same as with lawyers. Going over my case notes carefully, I do not find a dozen experts who have deliberately tried t o mislead the court or have made a single statement of fact that I had reason to believe was consciously incorrect. They have often been mistaken, but who has not? We have all failed to select the really critical issues for testing, or generalized on insufficient data or exaggerated in our own minds the importance of certain facts and overlooked entirely the effect of others. But we have all done these same things in matters involving the protection of our own private interests, when no motive could possibly exist to deceive ourselves, I n practically every instance where such a mistake had been made and could be pointed out, the witness has admitted his mistake candidly if still on the stand, or by silence if already excused. When it comes to “conclusions” and “opinions” there is more divergence. This is natural. It is generally a fact that there are two opposing camps, sometimes more, in the development of any new step. This is true even in pure science, where venal motives are wholly absent, where the issue is clearly defined, the conditions rigidly controlled, and the phenomena most carefully observed and checked. With very few exceptions I have not found the expert advancing any theory that was not in logical harmony with the facts so far as personally known to him. I have worked with or against such experts as Raymond F. Bacon, John H. Banks, Frederick E. Beach, Henry Carmichael, Charles F. Fulton, George F. Gebhardt, Jos. F. X . Harold, Edward Hart, Arthur H. Higgins, Phil C. Huntley, James Kendall, Charles A. Krause, Adolf Liebmann, Arthur D. Little, J. Merritt Matthews, Parker C . hlcIlhiney, Carl S. Miner, John C. Olsen, Francis J. Pond, Louis D. Ricketts, Samuel P. Sadtler, Owen L. Shinn, Reston Stevenson, James Swinburne, John B. Tuttle, George Burr Upton, Wm, H. Walker, Frank S . IVaterman. Ira Williams, James B. n’ithrow, and many more whose names do not come so readily to mind. I have known more than one of these men t o refuse to testify at all in cases offering large recompense and publicity because the wrong side approached them. Not only does the esteem I bear these men as square friends or square antagonists, or both, move me to testify thus, but also the respect that fifty-odd years have given me for human nature as a whole, in spite of the sprinkling of the other kind which Mr. Harris seems to think predominates. This opinion is founded on all the facts of my experience-an expert’s only valid excuse for presenting i t as evidence. LVM. XI. GROSVEXOR 50 EAST 41ST ST. Nzw YORK,S . II July 15, 1926
............ Editor’s Not6
HARRIS,FORDWHITMAN,*** Los 4ngeles, Calif. Attorney-at-law; b. 1877; *** Machinist, Belknap Motor Co., Portland, Me., 1896-99; Maine Elec. Co., Portland, Me., 1899-1900; Hey1 & Patterson, Pittsburgh, 190004; Eng., Westinghouse Elec. 8; Mfg. Co., E. Pittsburgh, 1904-12; since 1912 partner, Graham & Harris. Expert in patent law and patent development.*** Contributor; 4 m . Machinist, Machinery, System, Library
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEhIISTRY
874
Vol. 18, No. 8
Factory Management. Fellow A. E . E. E . , mem. A. S. M . E., Am. Chem. SOC. Mem. Los Angeles Bar. Attorney in Courts of California, and in Federal Courts. GROSVENOR, WILLIAMMASON,60 E . 41st St. New York, N. Y . Cons. Chemist, Factory Engr.; b. *** 1S73; B.S., Polytechnic Inst., 1893, Johns Hopkins Univ., 1894-96, Ph.D., Univ. of Pa., 1895; Chemist, Mathieson Alkali Works, Saltville, Va., 1896; engr. and asst. treas., Ampere Elec. Co., 1899; asst. supt. Gold St. Works, Gen. Chem. Co., 1901; asst. supt. Hudson River Works, Gen. Chem. Co., 1902-03; asst. mgr., investigation dept. Gen. Chem. C o . , 1903-04; supt. Contact Process Co., Buffalo, N . Y., 1906: cons. work since 1905; engr. and treas., George F. Wescott Co., 1907.*** Expert in important patent cases, chemical and physico-chemical, vegetable glue, flotation of ores, manufacture of stencils. Author: “Calculations for Dryer Design,” chapters on sulfuric and nitric acids in Rogers’ “Industrial Chemistry,” various papers on manufacture of metallic magnesium, on use of patent system and gen. subjects. Mem. Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs., Soc. Chem. Industry, Am. Chem. SOC.,Am. Electrochemical soc.***
In the same way asphalt may be prepared for the melting and float tests. A . KRAEFF
“Experts”
should be replaced by “Drops per minute of water required per minute t o produce the desired concentration =
***
***
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKS 6 BILDERDIJKSTRAAT BANDOENG, JAVA, D. E. I. M a y 16, 1926
Apparatus for Preparing Vapor-Air Mixtures of Constant Composition *** Correction Owing t o a n apparently misleading statement in a n article under this title by Yant and Frey, THIS JOURNAL,17, 692 (1925), “Drops per minute of water required to maintain 1.00 per cent vapor =
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: It was with great pleasure t h a t I read your editorial entitled “Experts” in your M a y issue. Too many cases of late have made the expert witness appear t o be somewhat of a joke, with those on one side of the case swearing to one thing and those on the other swearing t o the opposite. The suggestion that a group of expert witnesses be approved by t h e courts, and that these, and only these, be allowed to appear before the courts, is most excellent. But even so, I do not think t h a t the matter will be entirely rectified until the courts refuse to sanction the calling of expert witnesses by the parties of the trial. Being human, the huge fees given some of these experts is bound to warp their judgment t o a certain extent. I somehow feel that, should the judge call in, say, three approved experts t o sit with him during the trial for the purpose of sifting and analyzing the technical testimony, of personally examining the witnesses if necessary, and of making such tests as are needed t o reach a decision, many of the present difficulties would automatically solve themselves. The fees paid would be set by the courts in each case. This seems t o me t o be the more logical way t o cure the present ludicrous condition and one that would place the expert in a more satisfactory light. FRANCIS W. GLAZE UNITEDSTATESNAVALSTATION ISLANDS CAVITE, PHILIPPINE June 7,1926
o’ooy; LM,”
page 693, second column, line 7,
0.000406 LM
1 (1 -desired fractional concentration The apparatus as’originally designed and used was for a 1.00 per cent concentration or under, in which case the quantity
WV
l
was not significant. How1-desired fractional concentration ever, we have learned of two instances where the apparatus is used for higher concentrations, in which case the correction is necessary. W. P. YANT BUREAUOF MIXES EXPERIMENT STATION PITTSBURGH, PA. June 26, 1926 ~~
~
The Glycol Ethers and Their Use in the Lacquer Industry-Correction In my article under this title, THIS JOURNAL,18, 669 (1926), occur errors in the structural formulas for a-butylene and Bbutylene oxides on page 672. The correct formulas are as follows: CHz
CHa
CH
dH>O
CHz
CH
CHs
CHs &Butylene oxide
I
>o
1
II
I
a-Butylene oxide
On page 671 the following formula shows the correct way in which the molecules of water split out of three molecules of glycol to form triethylene glycol:
Preparation of Asphalt for Ductility Test
CHzOH
Editor of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: The usual tedious method for preparing asphalt briquet for ductility test by pouring the melted material into the mold placed upon a n amalgamated brass plate has been modified by the writer through the use of glue-sized paper. A sheet of bond paper 10 by 15 cm. is given a coat of glue made by dissolving 30 parts of glue in 100 parts of water. One coat is sufficient t o fill the paper and give a smooth surface. After the glue is dried, the mold is placed on the paper and the two side pieces of mold are covered with two matched stripes cut out from the glue-sized paper. The material t o be tested is melted and then poured into the mold in the usual way. After the material has cooled and the surplus is cut off,the two side pieces of mold are removed and the mold with paper is immersed in water for 10 t o 15 minutes until the glue is dissolved, The paper may then be easily stripped off from underneath as well as from the sides of asphalt briquet. Any adherent glue may be removed by washing the briquet with clean water.
CHz :OH:
1
...... i
CHz i .OH
..: ::.:
CHzO : H
I
. .
CHzO: H \
I
CH20H
J. G. DAVIDSON CARBIDE& CARBON CHEMICALS CORP. NEW YORK, N. Y.
Calendar of Meetings American Ceramic Society-Bellevue-Stratford, Philadelphia, Pa., August 30 t o September 2, 1926. American Chemical Society-72nd Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa., September 6 t o 11, 1926. 73rd Meeting, Richmond, Va., April 12 to 16, 1927. American Electrochemical Society-Fall Meeting, Washington, D. C., October 7 t o 9, 1926. American Gas Association--8th Annual Convention and Exhibition, Atlantic City, N. J., October 11 to 15, 1926. Second National Symposium on Organic Chemistry-Columbus, Ohio, December 29 t o 31, 1927.
