opinion. If a physician is called to make a post mortem examination and goes on the witness stand and wishes remuneration, no law will protect him because he has put himself in possession of some matter of fact. But if, on the other hand, he knows no matter of fact, but is simply called to give an opinion or answer hypothetical questions, and the Supreme Court decides that he is not bound to answer subpoenas of that character, that settles the matter; if the court decides otherwise, we must have legislation. And I think, inasmuch as the Legislature meets the first of January, this committee should be empowered to act in the capacity of a committee asking legislation on the part of the State Medical Society. The original power was to make a test case, now I think the powers should be enlarged, so that there should not only be a test case made and carried through at the expense of the Society, but the committee should be empowered to frame a bill, or ask some member of the Legislature to do so, and if possible secure its passage during the next session of the Legislature.

Dr. Robinson: I understand that the committee's power only extends to the test case. I am afraid the test case will not amount to much. It is a long time ahead. I make a motion that the committee have the additional power to present a bill to the Legislature providing for the proper remuneration of physicians who give expert testimony in court.

Dr. Bartlett : It would be better altogether if this committee should report to the Society in regard to the subject matter under consideration. They should come before us and give us some instruction in regard to the right of persons to demand our services. For years we have been drawn before tribunals to give our services as witnesses; the lawyers think they have a right to do this. If they have this right they will fight very strongly before they will give it up. If we knew just what right they had to compel us to give testimony, and especially expert testimony, then we would know better what is to be done.

Dr. Epley: It occurs to me that it would be useless for this society to formulate or present another bill to the Legislature for their consideration. Our position now before the Assembly is such that we may be considered as having been treated with contempt by

them. The only thing for us to do, in my opinion, is to resent that contempt.

When the former bill was drafted, we consulted the best authorities we could and drew to our support men of acknowledged ability, and formulated a bill which we thought would be the most apt to pass the Legislature. They would not listen to it or take it into consideration.

As I understand it, the Society should carry a case to the Supreme Court and have it decided; if we obtain a favorable decision, as we think we can, then a bill will have some chance.

Dr. Fox: I endorse Dr. Epley. I look at it as he does. He has repeated the words I might have said. Whoever may be appointed, I do not think it should devolve entirely upon any individual of that committee. I should consider that any gentleman present who is interested in the welfare of our association, as well as the profession in general, would be willing to assume the responsibility. It should not devolve upon this committee alone to be the targets, in that sense of the word. We should go on and resent contempt as a Society. When they call us as expert witnesses let us treat their call with silent contempt, no matter who it may be.

Dr. Ottillie: If this Society will resolve to support any and every member of the Society who, when subpoenaed as a witness, refuses to answer questions except as to matters of fact, I think they will bring the matter to a head very soon. If the courts thronghout this State find that physicians are unanimous on this point, that they will and do refuse to give answers to questions involving matters of opinion, I think they will then very readily give us such a law as we want. Everybody is waiting for this committee to bring a test case. Everybody is waiting for this committee to do everything. In this State during the past year there have probably been fifty chances for test cases to be brought before the Society, and there has not been one simply because we are all waiting for this committee.

Dr. Stansbury: I do not think we are getting closer together. It seems to me we are diverging all the time. I think we had better dispose of the committee, and I move, if it is in order, that the report of the committee be accepted, and the committee continued for another year.

Dr. Gapen: If you will take some action upon the commit

tee's report, first get the committee out of the way and then proceed with these resolutions, it will relieve the committee from some difficulty. At least accept or reject the report of the committee and continue or discharge it.

Dr. Reynolds: It seems to me that a continuance of this committee with the powers that they had simply, or any additional power, is time and expense thrown away. I do not know but that they can do something more next year than they have done during the last year, but it seems to me there is another way to reach the question.

A test case is simply a test as to whether we have the right to refuse or not. It seems to me that the easier way to reach that matter would be to resolve right here that we would know nothing of expert testimony before the courts and let them take their chances. Let every member of the Society stand by every other, and never give testimony as an expert; when summoned to court let him give the facts he knows in the case, but when they ask a hypothetical question know nothing about it. They will soon understand that they can get no expert testimony for nothing. It is the only chance we have for getting a decision. Should we go before the Supreme Court and get defeated we would be fixed forever. I have already refused to give expert testimony, and it was well understood by the court that I knew more than I told; and when a question came up that involved a question of expert testimony, I told them frankly, my 40 years' experience did not enable me to hunt up testimony in cases at $1.50 per day. They understood they could get nothing out of me in that respect and they did not charge me with contempt. If this course is generally pursued by us they will soon understand that they cannot get a physician to testify unless he is remunerated properly, and I believe that is the position to which we must come in order to get any notice from the Legislature. Therefore I would like to see this committee discharged, and perhaps it would be well to lay the whole matter aside until a more convenient hour and then discuss it more thoroughly. It is an important matter and one in which we should move aright.

Dr. Sarles: I believe in the survival of the fittest, and I do not believe this Society needs any law to protect itself in the courts. Under the common law, and an intelligent understanding of it by

protruding portions of the head and press it forward against the pubes, at the same time preventing a too rapid advance of the head, you can effectually prevent laceration. If you once accustom yourself to this course, you will surely adopt it for the future.

Dr. Meacher: While I am not much of an obstetrician, I wish to say there is no part of that paper that I could endorse more heartily than that of letting the membranes alone.

tion.

The paper was then referred to the Committee on Publica

The Censors made report at this point of the proceedings, recommending for admission to membership in the Society the following gentlemen:

W. E. Hallock, of Juneau; graduate of the Medical Department, University of Michigan, 1873.

L. V. Lewis, of Sun Prairie; graduate of Rush Medical College, Chicago, Ill., 1870.

F. T. Nye, of Beloit; graduate of Chicago Medical College, Ill., 1881.

E. F. Eldridge, of New London; graduate of Dartmouth Medical College, N. H., 1881.

J. A. Clason, of Neosho; graduate of Missouri Medical College, St, Louis, Mo., 1884.

W. N. Daniels, of Mosinee; graduate of Rush Medical College, Chicago, Ill., 1878.

S. R. Moyer, of Monroe; graduate of Chicago Medical College, Ill., 1883.

G. E. De Mars, of Centralia; graduate of Western Reserve Medical College, Cleveland, O., 1877.

J. G. Pelton, of Spring Green; graduate of Geneva Medical College, N. Y., 1846.

J. A. Templeton, of Neillsville; graduate of Medical Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., 1855.

H. L. Day, of Eau Claire; graduate of Medical Department, University of Buffalo, N. Y., 1860.

W. R. Whitelaw, of Lodi; graduate of Medical Department, University of Michigan, 1880.

C. E. Booth, of Elroy; a former member of the State Medical Society.