Page images
PDF
EPUB

views by the following language of Professor Carusi: "The student should be taught to reason for himself; to solve problems and cases presented to him by his clients. He should then be trained in the technique of the law." When Professor Carusi wrote those words, he unconsciously showed how much he personally has been influenced and strengthened by Langdell's brain and labors.

Where does Professor Carusi find any authority for his statements as to Langdell's theories?

I don't believe Langdell ever talked about an "inductive method" in his life, nor do I believe he ever said anything about scientific theories, or about taking somebody else's thought, instead of the original, or anything of the kind. There has been a vast amount written concerning systems and methods during the last few years, but none of these articles are from Langdell's pen or inspired by him. The Harvard Law School Catalogue never has had a line about "method" or "system" as far as I have ever seen. Professor Thayer of Harvard said: "As for methods of teaching, that is another matter. They must, indeed, have relation to any particular methods of study that are prescribed or recommended; but they are not necessarily determined by them. In law, as in other matters, every teacher has his own methods, determined by his personal gifts, or his lack of gifts -methods as incommunicable as his temperament, his looks, or his manners." And Professor Gray of the same University said: "In all Law Schools, I suppose, the students learn from textbooks, cases, and oral instruction. At any rate, they do so here. Each teacher is free to use these means as he pleases. The different professors do actually use them in different ways and proportions, and so does each professor, as he is dealing with different topics."

I believe this is a fair expression of the Harvard Law Faculty view during Langdell's time and since.

It is true that Langdell handled his own classes in his own way, and, as an aid in his work, prepared cases for his own use. No one was obliged to follow his plans, and no one would ever have heard of his collection of cases outside of his own classroom, had it not been for his great success in their use. Where can one find a collection of cases emanating from Harvard in which "a few of the opinions of Appellate Courts, which in the opinion of Mr. Ames, or usually some considerably lesser person, are good opinions, are bound up in one cover"?

Has the Professor ever seen a Harvard collection of cases, has he ever been in a Harvard law class lecture room, or has he ever asked an intelligent Harvard law school graduate how the work in that school is conducted? From his article I should suppose not. I should suppose not. If there is any school in the country using any such "case books" or "case book system" as he describes, it would be interesting to know of it. I take Professor Carusi's word for it that "the case lawyer" is "the legitimate offspring" of such a system. Does the Professor know from his own experience?

But why connect the name of Langdell with any such foolish "system," or "method," or whatever it may be called? Langdell never used any such system, or even remotely hinted at any such ideas. And where does the Professor get the notion that the Langdell collections were unedited? It is true that judicious omissions of immaterial matter were not indicated by stars, but the careful editing was there all the same. Where, further, does he gain the idea that Langdell's collections of cases were impracticable?

In the writer's opinion, Langdell's collection of Cases on Contracts would be

of immense value to-day for practical use in the classroom, and he is not even convinced that such a fine collection as that of Williston (is he one of Professor Carusi's lesser persons?) is an improve

ment.

And why does Professor Carusi talk about Langdell in connection with an "inductive method of studying law through the medium of first-hand examination of a million or so cases during three long years of law school work." Surely fiction and fairy tale never went further than that. Why not say that Langdell taught his classes to cook, or weave carpets, and be done with it?

And what has Ames done to incur the Professor's contemptuous wrath?

This brilliant scholar is one of the most generous, liberal, and kindly gentlemen to be found in this or any other country. It is true he is one of Langdell's products. It is further true that his "case books" do not satisfy Professor Carusi, supposing that he ever saw them; but then we must remember that the poor man is doing the best he can, and then, again, he is, perhaps, somewhat excusable in supposing that his books have a grain of merit, since he knows that some of us "imitators" greatly admire these selfsame "Ames books." But Ames is not seeking to force his books upon Professor Carusi. I have heard of no steps which he is taking to have them surreptitiously introduced into the National University Law School. And, speaking of imitators, I want to warn Professor Carusi right here that the New York University Law Faculty are out as firstclass imitators. We propose to imitate any good thing in the way of teaching law which we can find. We are hunting round for good things to imitate, and any such which we find Professor Carusi introducing into his school we propose to imitate at once.

Professor Carusi seems to approve of sets of condensed cases. He probably never heard of me before, but I believe I was the first who ever tried that experiment, which I, in my ignorance, supposed was an adaptation from Langdell's ideas. Upon beginning to teach Contracts, I published a small book of condensed cases, which later was followed by a second edition, much enlarged, and this I used with fair success through a long series of years.

The law school in which I teach is not a "text-book school," whatever that may be; but I once said in a public paper: "Some of our Faculty have found that for those who believe in the study of selected cases very satisfactory results may be obtained by a careful and judicious consideration of the facts of some cases, thus saving time and unnecessary labor. We find that in this way a full classroom discussion can be obtained, and often this is facilitated by omitting the key which some opinions furnish."

After a thorough trial we have concluded that, on the whole, better results can be obtained by using collections of selected cases. My personal experience with condensed cases in Contracts leads me to believe that for a subject of that character, lending itself so readily to mental training, condensed cases have many advantages, and I do not regret having used them for so long; but nevertheless, when the second edition of my cases was exhausted, I concluded not to publish a third, and since that time I have used the regular collections, believing that in the long run better results. may be obtained.

In stating this I must confess that I use the sets of cases which Professor Carusi assures us are such failures, and am even so dull as greatly to admire the collections of Ames and Williston; nay,

even worse, I have actually thought the notes of these gentlemen immensely valuable and suggestive.

But why should there be all this pother about "systems" and "methods"? Professor Carusi is at the head of a law school at the National Capital. This is a fine location for a great school, and a good chance for a great teacher to build up such a school. Why worry over the failure of Langdell and the Harvard Law School? Why not let Ames, Williston, and their colleagues jog along in their narrow path, teaching their small handful of students in their own miserable way, using their broken-down system and employing their unsuccessful cases? Why stir up the poor, dying school? As for the rest of us, miserable imitators, we are not worth the Professor's worry.

It may truly be said that no argument is here raised in favor of any "method" of teaching law. There is no desire to do anything of the kind. Nor do I consider it essential or useful to attempt any refutation of Professor Carusi's general argument and criticisms. What odds does it make whether one man prefers to teach in one way while another prefers some other. The real question is: Does this man succeed as a teacher? If he is a true success, what more do we want? Many years ago the present writer

expressed his own views in an address as follows: "Who that ever observed the charming personality of Professor Dwight in his lecture room or what student, having sat under Professor Langdell and studied the working of that remarkable and original mind, will not agree that the true law teacher instructs his class in his own way and accomplishes results by his own personality."

If Professor Carusi will only fail as Langdell has done; if he will make of the National Law School such a failure as is the Harvard Law School; if his teaching shall produce such failures as Ames. and Williston of Cambridge, Kenneson and Arthur Rounds of New York, Hall and Mack of Chicago, all Langdell products, not to mention countless others scattered over the country; if he will devote his bright brain, fine command of English, and facile pen in the production of such writing as Langdell has given us, then the profession may well rise up and call him blessed. And if, after Professor Carusi's death, which I hope may be in the very far future, any one with fine imagination and ready pen, ascribes ideas, sayings, and views to him. which he has never himself authorized, then may some one be found to protest, as I have tried to do with reference to Langdell.

"Manual Training" for Lawyers.

By ROGER W. COOLEY,

Special Lecturer on Legal Bibliography in the University of Michigan, the
University of Chicago, Cornell University, George Washington University, etc.

SOME

COME wag said that the young lawyer was apt to find the practice of the law only too truly so named, and that it was a weary wait before the "practicing" was finished and he really got into the game. To a considerable extent, this has been due to the fact that the lawyer came to his professional work with no "manual training" to balance his theoretical knowledge of the law. Perhaps no other profession has so taken for granted that its members would somehow, by intuition, or inspiration, or sad experience, learn the practical handling of its tools as the law. The young engineer knows how to use his sextant, the young surgeon is not unfamiliar with his instruments, but the young lawyer, as turned out by the law schools until very recently, was as completely lost in a miscellaneous law library as though he had been turned into an alien territory.. He knew the text-books from which he had studied; he knew certain leading cases on certain established principles of the law; but, if sent to a public library to collect the authorities on a case (work that he must expect to do before any and every actual trial), he would probably be bewildered and almost certainly be ineffectual. Surrounded by thousands of volumes, classed as reports, statutes, text-books, and digests, how could he hope to find the specific cases his chief wanted, and to feel sure that he had done so with professional thoroughness? He might find one case in point, in text

book or cyclopedia; but he would be likely to have only the vaguest ideas as to how that case was related to other cases, or where to find later decisions on the same point, or how to gather a complete line of authorities and know that he had covered the field past the possibility of surprise.

This was, I venture to say, the almost universal experience of the young lawyer three years ago. To-day there are several thousand young men, who, if sent by their chiefs to the library to collect authorities on a specific question of law, will enter the library feeling that they are on familiar ground; who look upon the thousands of volumes of reports as a mine of information for the exploitation of which they possess the proper tools; and who approach their labors serene in the confidence that they know the methods to be pursued, and that, if the cases they want to find are in the reports, they can find them-that if they do not find them, it is because there are no such cases.

As it has been my good fortune to contribute somewhat to this result, I have been asked to tell the readers of the American Law School Review, briefly, how it has been accomplished, and to give the results of my observations, in so far as they may show the need of further instruction along the same lines.

Three years ago, in the fall of 1906 to be exact, the proposition was made to half a dozen of the leading law schools

of the West to give, to the senior classes of those schools, a short course of instruction in the use of a law library and the practical methods of finding the law. The schools thus selected as the pioneers in the movement accepted the suggestion and put at my disposal every facility for the successful accomplishment of the work. The success of this first attempt to teach practically the use of law books, imperfect as it was, was nevertheless so great that not only were arrangements at once made to give the course in those schools the following year, but a general interest was excited, leading to an extension of the work to some twenty schools the second year. During the past season my entire time from October 1st to May 1st has been devoted to the work, and the students in over thirty of the leading law schools have received training in the use of books. In some schools the course is required while in others it is elective; but, whether required or elective, the attendance has been about the same, the students in nearly every instance having accepted the work willingly and even with enthusiasm.

The aim is to make the course of instruction catholic in its scope. While, for obvious reasons, considerable time is devoted to the use of digests, citation books, and the like, the use of text-books, encyclopedias, and series of selected cases is emphasized, especially in their relation to the digests. Little or no attempt is made to teach the student any theory of classification of the law. Practical methods are relied on entirely. For example: In teaching the use of the digest for finding a first case-that is to say, for getting a start in the search for authority-use is made of the descriptive word method. The practical advantage of this method is that it does

not presuppose any particular theory or system of classification, and it is therefore applicable to any good index or digest.

What is meant by the descriptive word method in the use of a digest may not be clearly understood. This method rests on the principle that in any statement of facts on which a right of action or a defense is founded there will occur a number of words which are descriptive of either (1) the subject-matter of the controversy that is, the concrete thing or act, without the existence of which the controversy would not have arisen; or (2) a party to the controversy; or (3) the ground of the action; or (4) the remedy to be applied. If, now, we select from our statement of facts as many descriptive words as we can and turn to the digest, we will find in the digest a cross-reference head corresponding to one or more of our descriptive words, and under such head we will find a crossreference indicating the place where the law relating to the particular subjectmatter, party, ground of action, or remedy is to be found.

The next step in using a digest is to show the student that, if one case is found by use of a descriptive word, that case may be used as a key to unlock the whole system of case law on that particular subject. As a corollary to this, it is also shown that, if a first case is found in a text-book, an encyclopedia, or a series of selected cases, that case may also be used as a key to other cases, and that a text-book written ten or fifteen years ago, so far as it is an index to case law, may easily and certainly be brought down to date and made in effect a textbook of 1909. This part of the course is supplemented by general references to and explanations of the miscellaneous

« PreviousContinue »