WALZ, William Emanuel, Dean of the University of Maine Law School.-Born in Columbus, Ohio, April 13, 1860. Son of John Walz and Charlotte Newman Walz. Graduated from Harvard University in 1899. Married Mary L. Deininger on March 25, 1883. Professor of History in the Imperial Government College at Tokio, Japan, from 1883 to 1896. Decorated with the Order of the Rising Sun by the Emperor of Japan in 1896. Appointed Professor of Law at the University of Maine in 1899, and elected Dean of the law faculty of that University in 1902. Subjects taught in the law school are "Municipal Corporations," "Equity," "Partnership," and "Torts."

WATERMAN, Arba Nelson, Dean of the John Marshall Law School.-Born in Greensboro, Vt., February 5, 1830. Son of Loring F. Waterman and Mary Stevens Waterman. Graduated from the Albany Law School with degrees of A. B. and LL. B. Married Rebecca E. Hall on December 16, 1862. Admitted to the Bar of New York in 1861. Lieutenant Colonel of the One Hundredth Illinois Infantry during the Civil War. Judge of the Cook County, Illinois, Circuit Court from 1887 to 1903, and also Appellate Judge of the First and Second Districts. Dean of the John Marshall Law School since 1903. Subjects taught: "Constitution of the United States" and "Illinois Practice." Author of "A Century of Caste," and the article on

"Quo Warranto" published in Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure.

WHITFIELD, Albert H., Dean of the Millsaps College of Law.-Born near Aberdeen, Miss., October 12, 1849. Son of Robert D. Whitfield and Jane McMillan Whitfield. The following degrees were conferred upon him by the University of Mississippi: A. B., LL. B., A. M., and LL. D. Married Dodie Buffalo December 13, 1876. Admitted to the Bar of Mississippi in 1874. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1874 to 1900. Chief Justice of that court since 1900. Dean of the University of Mississippi Law School, 1871 to 1874. Dean of the Millsaps College of Law since 1903. Subjects taught in law school are "Constitutional Law," "Corporations," "Criminal Law and Procedure," "Evidence," and "Real Property." Author of the article in the Cosmopolitan Magazine in 1900, "Shall the Philippines be Annexed?"

WIGMORE, John Henry, Dean of the Northwestern University Law School.Born in San Francisco, Cal., March 4, 1863. Son of John Wigmore and Harriet Joyner Wigmore. Graduated from Harvard University with degrees of A. B. in 1883 and LL. B. in 1887. Married Emma H. Vogl September 16, 1889. Admitted to the Bar of Massachusetts in 1887. Professor of American Law in Keio Gijuka University, Tokio, Japan, from 1889 to 1892. Appointed Professor of Law in the Northwestern University Law School in 1893. Dean of the Northwestern University Law School since 1901. Subjects taught: "Carriers," "Common-Law Pleading," "Evidence," "International Law," "Quasi Contracts," and "Torts." Author of "Old Japan," 1891; "Materials for the Study of Private Law in Old Japan," 4 vols. 1891-92; "Compiled Examinations in Law," 1898; 16th edition of "Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, 1899; "Treatise on Evidence," 4 vols., 1905; co-editor of "Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History." 3 vols., 1907-1909. and legal articles published in various law magazines.

THE

pioneers in any movement must expect doubt and even opposition, for there seems to be a natural prejudice against anything new, especially in methods of education, even in America, a country famous as a worshiper of the god of all things new. Therefore those who started correspondence instruction and regularly organized institutions for the practice of this method of instruction realized that it would be hailed, if not opposed, as a new feature in educational methods, which must overcome prejudices even of those who should. have been its friends and supporters. As the prejudice was only natural, however, perhaps no one has any right to find fault with it.

Before going further, I want it understood that in referring to resident schools in this article in no case do I do so in the spirit of criticism, or even of invidious comparison. In measuring the value of anything, we must have some standard from which to measure, and I regard and here use the resident schools simply as the gold standard in methods of legal education.

In this article I hold no brief for any particular correspondence school. I speak simply on behalf of the correspondence system of instruction itself. In spite of opposition and prejudice, it has gone steadily on advancing in popular esteem, since the Sprague Correspondence School of Law was founded, eighteen years ago. It is true that this

movement, like all new movements and all reforms, has to a certain extent suffered by reason of its devotees as well as at the hands of its opponents. Any sincere and conscientious advocate of the correspondence method must admit that it has its weak points and its defects; but the same thing might with all propriety be admitted for the resident law schools-in all justice must be so admitted. Certainly no one would claim that correspondence law schools are better than the best resident schools, for that would be not only untrue, but foolish. However, admitting the weaknesses or defects or deficiencies properly attributable to it, the correspondence method of instruction has features of immense value to the public at large, and institutions giving correspondence instruction have their place-not as rivals of the resident schools and universities, not necessarily as institutions in the same class, but as institutions that serve that greater body of earnest and ambitious men and women who want to learn, who want to educate themselves, who want to improve their condition. and prospects in life, but whose circumstances do not permit them to attend a resident school. As a matter of fact, I am sure that our own school has created for the resident law colleges vastly more students than it has taken away from them, and the same is true of all other good law correspondence schools.

We have many students who take up the study of law with no idea of practicing it as a profession, but who have an idea that they would like to study law and improve their minds and add to their education, and which study they can pursue in no other way than through a correspondence school. They become interested in the study of law, and some wish to go to a resident school, and circumstances often so change that these students can and do take advantage of the opportunity. A correspondence law school that is conscientiously and sincerely conducted will always recommend that its students. go to resident schools if they can; for it must be recognized that the resident law schools offer many advantages that correspondence schools cannot give. The atmosphere of the classroom, the association with students pursuing the same line of work, and to a more or less extent with the professors also, has a tendency to produce the best results in an earnest student in a resident school. On the other hand, so far as mere thoroughness is concerned, a correspondence school need yield nothing to the resident school, provided the school is earnestly and sincerely conducted, and the student himself earnestly and sincerely desires to learn and will do his part as a student. This is proved by the results attained by the graduates of correspondence schools at State Bar Examinations, and, for that matter, in the practice of the profession. That fact, however, is quite as much a tribute to the student as to the correspondence school, if not more so; for no man can go through a correspondence course unless he earnestly desires to learn, and when he does go through such a course, and completes it, it is certain that he has learned at least as large a percentage of

the subjects covered as has the average graduate of the resident law school pursuing the same course. The resident schools, of course, offer the fullest opportunities for learning, if the student attending will do his part. They offer possibly fuller opportunities than a correspondence school can offer, though in making that statement I admit I hold some mental reservations, and in no statement in this article do I speak merely from theory, because I have had experience as a student in two of the best university law schools, and also fifteen years' experience in correspondence instruction since admission to the bar. I repeat, therefore, that while the correspondence school should not and does not seek to take the place of the resident school, it has an important place all its own. It should not be regarded by the resident law schools as a rival, nor should it be opposed by them. They should encourage it, if their faculty are in the broadest sense public educators, instead of simply ambitious advocates of their own institution and of their own method. Knowing all of the advantages and values of the resident school, having seen them and participated in them as a student, and knowing the advantages and values on the one hand, and, on the other, the weakness and deficiencies of the correspondence school, having seen them and taken part in them as an instructor, I think I may claim for the correspondence school, in the field that it seeks to occupy and does occupy, a position of the very highest service and value to the public. For our own school, as an institution, I ask neither consideration nor favors, for as an educational factor I am acquainted with the results of its work and know it to be entitled to the highest consideration on behalf of its

students and in their interests, and I am sure the same may be said of the Chicago Correspondence School of Law and several other correspondence institutions.

The main point is that the Correspondence Schools of Law have their place, and were in fact brought into existence by the necessities of a large body of students, who were in the nature of things entitled to as much in the way of opportunities as any one else, but to whom circumstances closed the doors of the resident schools and universities. The correspondence method of instruction, therefore, has its place, and during the last eighteen years it has conclusively proved its value to the public. So far as individual schools are concerned, I speak not for them-neither for the one with which I am connected, nor any other. Recognize the method, however. Give it the credit that is due it, and let the individual schools stand or fall by their own merits.

With all institutions it should be, and ultimately is, simply a case of the survival of the fittest.

The students whom the correspondence schools serve are, in the vast majority, not very young men, but men who have been out in the world long enough to have realized from their business experience the value, yea, the necessity, of education, and by those experiences to develop ambitions, many of them for the practice of law, but ambitions which the circumstances in which they are placed make it impossible for them to gratify through the means offered by resident schools. Either for family or other reasons, they cannot afford to give up their businesses or their incomes to attend a resident school. They must, therefore, either give up their ambitions or study by some other method. For

them, at least, the correspondence school offers the best opportunity that is obtainable. It offers them substantially the same course as does the resident school. It may not offer them all the benefits or opportunities or advantages that the resident school does, but it at least offers them the opportunity to receive the same information that they would get in a resident school, and to obtain it according to their own time and opportunity for study, and by a method which, if conscientiously practiced by the school and earnestly carried out by the student, is, for the purposes of thoroughness, nearly ideal. In this connection the following letter written to the Chicago Correspondence School of Law by one of its students, Rev. Harry White, of Natick, Mass., a graduate of Harvard and a man whose education and experience are such as to qualify him to form a correct judgment, may be of interest. It is about as clear a statement of the merits of the correspondence method as could be offered, and is certainly a high commendation of the work being done by the school in which he was enrolled as a student.

"Dear Sirs: Being a graduate of Harvard, I shared in the prejudice which many college men have against the correspondence schools; and, desiring some knowledge of the law, I took the work up with you with considerable misgiving. I am glad to be able to say that I have been most agreeably surprised by the character of the work done in the Chicago Correspondence School of Law.

"In comparing correspondence schools with resident schools and colleges, we are constantly unfair to the former on account of the prestige which is enjoyed by the latter. Any man looking back at the facts of his university days will see that, although a great many scholars were on the teaching force, it was exceptional that the great scholar was also the great teacher. While there are some obvious advantages in favor of the resident study at a university, there are also some de cided advantages in favor of the corresponddence school. Take the facts about lectures. If the student listens attentively to the lectures, without taking notes, he soon forgets them. If he takes notes, his attention is divided, and he misses a part of the lecture.

If the instructor happens to be dull and prosy, the student is at a still greater disadvantage. If the air is bad, or he chances to feel tired or ill at the time of the lecture, he misses still more of its substances. With the correspondence school, the student does not labor under these disadvantages. The instruction being printed or written, the student is able to get everything. If he does not understand, he can read it over again. If he is still unable to understand, he can have it explained for him, without making himself conspicuous or annoying the lecturer by an interruption. He is able to control his own rate of progress and to go as rapidly or as slowly as he chooses. He is not hampered by the dull students nor hurried by the bright ones.

"Your lesson papers seem to be constructed on the soundest pedagogical basis. There is the supplementary matter which illustrates or explains the matter of the text-book, and the questions by which the student may test his knowledge of the text.

"Your lectures cover the subject in a way which enables the student to grasp the subject he is studying as a whole, into which he can fit the different subordinate principles, so that it all lies in his mind as a systematized unit, rather than a mass of separate and unrelated facts and details which must be retained by sheer force of memory.

"But, however much praise may be due to the lesson papers and lectures, I think that the most effective part of your instruction is that in the Test Questions and Practice Department. It is everybody's experience that we learn best by doing things. We learn to walk by putting the principles of walking into practice, and we learn to swim in the same fashion, and the student of law learns law best by putting the legal principles, as he studies them, into practice, by working out just such Test Questions as you furnish him, and by doing such work as is prescribed in the Practice Department. He will make mistakes, of course, but there is just as much learned-if not, indeed, more-in making mistakes and being corrected, as there is in not making mistakes.

"If you will pardon this somewhat lengthy letter (which you may print, if you care to, for this work seems to me to be so desirable, not only to a man who desires to be a lawyer, but to every man who is a citizen, that I should like to have it taken up more universally), I should say that your catalogue does not fairly or adequately represent the merits of your work. Your school does suffer from two limitations, it is true. It cannot

supply a student with brains, and it cannot make him work. But, if he has the average amount of intelligence and the average capacity for work, he can learn law with your system of instruction. He can learn law thoroughly, and with a great deal of pleasure in the learning."

One of our students, a university graduate who was finally able to return to the law school of his own university and graduate therefrom, wrote us:

"In some respects I think your method is superior to university classroom work for a man preparing for the bar examination."

Both these men are qualified to form. opinions that are entitled to consideration, for they are men of high education, having had considerable experience with both methods of study.

Along the same line, the late Dr. William R. Harper, while President of the Chicago University, a short time before his death, in a public address said:

"In some respects there is opportunity for better work in correspondence study than in the ordinary classroom recitation. Each student in a correspondence course has to recite on all the lessons, while in many a classroom the student recites on only about one-thirtieth of the work of a three months' course. It is safe to say that the standard of work done in correspondence courses is fully equal to that of the work done in the large class. Indeed, I may say that there is a larger proportion of high grade work done by correspondence than in class recitation. People who take work by correspondence do it because they want to get something out of it, while in many courses in colleges the students take the work because it is required in the curriculum."

Further, drawing his illustrations. from the teaching by correspondence in Hebrew and other dead languages, President Harper said:

"The work done by correspondence is even better than that done in the classroom. The correspondence student does all the work himself. He does twenty times as much reciting as he would in a class where there were twenty people. He works out the difficulties himself and the results stay with him."

In another address Dr. Harper is said to have stated that the students who took the freshman and sophomore work of his university by correspondence and came to Chicago to enter the junior class, were more thoroughly prepared