true sense the whole body of law which we call equity is but a protest against the narrow logic in procedure and inadequacy of remedy in the ancient common-law courts. If, then, we are forced to admit that the rules of practice have been and are now so potential in determining and forming the rules of substantive law, why should these formative rules be ignored or at least greatly minimized in the teaching of law to which they have given form and force?

Consideration of the part taken by the student body in the operation of a law school is purposely omitted from this paper, as it will be taken up in some of its most interesting phases in other papers to be presented during this session of the association.

Discussion

Frank Irvine, Dean, Cornell University Law School.

From an address which has so thoroughly commanded the interest of the Association and so pregnant in topics for thought and discussion, it is difficult to select those which may reasonably be discussed within the limitations of time which are upon us, and it is certainly impossible to cover the entire subject matter of the address. I shall, therefore, speak of perhaps two or three matters which occur to me, not necessarily because they are the most important features of the address, but because they deal with subjects which have pressed somewhat upon my attention.

I think there was a time when the differences of opinion referred to by the President in his address were differences as to theories and as to methods. I think it is now true, as he has suggested, that those differences are very largely differences of emphasis rather than differences in theory, and I am inclined to think that the discussions in this Association, and the informal discussions among representatives of the Association, have had a great deal to do with this approach to uniformity in method. It is only an approach, but I think it is true, as the President has said, that what we have heretofore discussed as a difference in methods of instruction or of study, whichever you call

it, is now largely, or almost entirely, a discussion as to relative stress.

I believe, further, that the method should be left to the Professor, as the President suggests. If a Professor cannot determine the best method for himself to pursue in dealing with a particular subject and with a particular class of students, I do not believe it lies within the wisdom of what has been styled the governing body, or of the faculty as a whole, to instruct him how to improve. Sometimes I have thought that more depends upon the personal characteristics of the Professor than upon the student or upon the subject as to what might be in a given case the best method of instruction. At any rate, I am very sure that when a professor is selected he ought to be given absolute freedom in that respect.

That leads to another thought. The Presldent has emphasized three characteristics of the successful teacher: Character; knowledge of his subject; enthusiasm. I think there is another characteristic absolutely essential to good teaching-hinted at, but perhaps not brought out very clearly-and that is the ability to get the point of view of the student. A man may have a lofty character, he may be a man of the most profound learning, he may be enthusiastic to the poinť of ignition, to the point of explosion, yet, unless he can realize what is going on in the minds, of the young men down in front of him, and conduct the class from their point of view, he will not be a successful teacher.

I was much interested in the President's description of his system of weekly written quizzes, and I realize thoroughly how important it is to adopt some system which will prevent a course of study in the law school from becoming a matter of attendance upon the classroom exercises, with a somewhat passive resistance to what is going on, followed by a hasty cram at the end of the term under the guidance of an enthusiastic coach. I am not one of those who believe that a law school should simply afford facilities to young men to study law. Those of us whose students are not all possessed of that degree of training which is represented by the A. B. degree, realize a certain fact which I think those who are engaged in teaching those only who have the A. B. degree also realize, but perhaps not to the same extent. That is that youth is entitled to protection against youth, that young men are not all matured at the age at which they enter the law school, that they are not all thoroughly in earnest, and that they are not all going to devote themselves with a whole heart to the study of law day in and day out, night and day. We cannot expect them to be so constituted. Some of them may be entirely careless until the final examinations approach, and yet not be altogether vicious or worthless. A

great many of them are going to make good lawyers some time. Now, those men should be protected against their own tendencies to procrastination, their own tendencies towards idleness. I realize all that.

But there is another side of the question. It is the duty of the law school to offer all of its facilities to the students seeking to master the profession. By their facilities I mean not only their material equipment, but the abilities, the learning, the energies of the professors. I do not think we should adopt any system or pursue any method for the purpose of holding up the comparatively few idle and careless students, if by so doing we are sacrificing in any degree the needs of the great majority of earnest students. I believe that any system devised for the purpose of seeing that the work is kept up from day to day, and pursued earnestly, should be devised with this principle always in view-that it is the serious, earnest student who after all is entitled to the best that there is in us and who must not be sacrificed.

The absolutely worthless student is going to go overboard anyhow. The man with careless tendencies can be saved often without sacrifice of the great mass of the students (for I believe the great mass of the students are serious and earnest). It is altogether a question of balance. What can we do with the small class carelessly inclined, without sacrificing the mass of earnest students? The doubt I have as to the system proposed by the President is that I fear it lays too great emphasis on the smaller class. If a student be pursuing four or five subjects at a time, weekly quizzes would mean four hours, at least, additional classroom work. They would mean the preparation of many examination questions by the professor. They would mean a certain degree of supervision by the professor. They would mean a very considerable drain upon the professor's time, and a very considerable drain, too, upon the students' time. I speak theoretically, because I have not seen the system in operation myself; but I venture a doubt as to whether it would be worth while to pursue so elaborate a system and one requiring the expenditure of so much time for such a purpose.

I have already taken more time than I expected to take, but there is one other topic where I am afraid we might have trouble among ourselves if we attempted to carry the President's recommendations into action. If we should attempt to-night to fix the salaries of teachers in law schools to correspond with the salaries paid to the judges of the highest court in their respective states, there might develop some little difference of opinfon as between professors teaching in schools in a state where the judges of the highest court are paid $2,000 a year and those teaching in a state where the judges of the high

est court are paid $12,000. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to have the Association to-night adopt that standard of pay.

Oliver A. Harker, Dean, University of Illinois Law School.

I shall not make any extended remarks on the subject of the very excellent paper to which we have listened this evening, but will simply make brief mention of some of its leading features. The aspect of the paper embraces two questions: First, the organization of the law school; and, second, its subsequent operation.

I take it, in the organization of a law school, the four chief considerations are: (1) Equipment; (2) the training of those who are to give instruction; (3) the training of those who are to receive instruction; (4) the courses in which instruction is to be given. Of course, the equipment lies almost exclusively with the governing board, or Board of Trustees, with which the law faculty has very little to do. With reference to equipment I desire to emphasize one thing said by our President, and that is good library equipment. Many of our law schools have been organized with scarcely any library equipment. A set of reports of the Supreme Court of the state in which the law school is located, a few hundred shelf-worn books donated by liberal practitioners who have no further use for them, and a few text-books constitute the outfit. So crippled financially is the school that it cannot procure sets of the state reports, the English reports and the Canadian reports, the Federal Decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States, and equip itself with the various text-books of the latest editions.

Allow me to emphasize what our President has said with reference to the gentlemen who are to give instruction. The law teacher is born, not made. He may be a successful law teacher, and yet he would be a very poor practitioner. The most successful practitioner might be an absolute failure as a teacher. I assume that no argument is necessary in support of the proposition that the teacher who has prepared himself for law teaching will do better work, at least in courses in substantive law, than the man who has made no such preparation, however profound may be his knowledge of the law, however long and successful his experience as a practitioner. Native ability, the knack of getting on well with students, and the ability to inspire in students enthusiasm for the work, being equal, the man who has spent three years in close study in one of two or three law schools in the United States that I might mention is better equipped for teaching substantive law, though he has never tried a lawsuit in his life, than the man who has had no such preparation, however profound his knowledge of the law may be,

or how successful his experience in the preparation and trial of causes.

I do not know that the President referred to one of the other considerations that I have mentioned, one which I regard as quite important. It is the previous training of those who are to receive instruction. The desire to increase attendance has had the effect in many law schools, especially those of the Middle West, to bring into the schools young men unprepared in academic training for the study of legal subjects. I do not refer to certain money-making enterprises existing in some of our large cities that offer to the dry goods clerk, the driver of the express wagon, and others whose daylight hours are employed, a full and complete legal education by candlelight. I refer to the law departments of state universities and other universities. However anxious the head of the department may be to fix the entrance requirement high, he often yields to the pressure of an ambitious President or ambitious Trustees, who feel that the most potent argument for increase of legislative appropriation or increase of private endowment is increased student attendance. So, to his future embarrassment, and the embarrassment of his associates and his better students, through low entrance requirements and the very convenient door labeled "special student," there come into the school young men short in academic training by one year and sometimes two years. Now, I do not feel that it is necessary to have as an entrance requirement a collegiate degree. I have not reached the point yet where I believe that four years of college work is essential training for young men to engage in legal study. Furthermore, it is the experience of many of us that some of the best students, those who have gone forth best equipped for a professional career, are young men that had no higher academic training than that afforded by a first-class four years high school. But I do feel that no school in its organization should fix its entrance requirements below that of the training which a first-class four years high school gives.

In reference to the courses, the question involves how much shall be in required studies and how much in electives. Certainly, the required studies should be all those required by the State Board of Law Examiners of the state in which the school is located. I am not much of a believer in electives before the third year. Certainly, there should be no electives in the first year.

After the school is organized, I take it that the best results will be obtained from the labors of teachers who devote their entire time to the work. I know that there are exceptional instances in which lawyers in active practice and judges from the bench, intensely interested in legal education, have succeeded eminently as teachers; but they are exceptions. A man in active practice, with his mind filled with the details of his

clients' affairs, and shaping the course of a trial contest cannot bring to the classroom that efficiency that he would bring if he devoted his entire thought and energy to the work. An occasional lecture, a series of lectures, or a course in practice, can be given by the active practitioner with profit; but I believe that in the main instruction should be carried on by those who devote their entire time to the work.

I have no disposition to discuss the relative merits of the case-book and text-book method of instruction. When the school that I represent in this Association was organized, ten or twelve years ago, the case method of instruction was adopted in all courses, except in Common-Law Pleading and in Equity Pleading, and in those courses textbooks were used, supplemented with cases. We are satisfied with it. Whatever the method, whether the text method, the casebook method, or both together, the aim of the law school should be to give the student such training as will best equip him for the practice of law. A mere knowledge of the law will not suffice. He should learn the reasons that have made the law what it is, and they can be mastered only by the study of the law in the light of its historical development. Each subject as it is presented should have the principles which underlie it studied in a historical sense. The aim of the school should be to carefully drill the student in legal reasoning and in legal habits of thought. If the school is part of a state university, supported by state appropriation, the line of instruction may differ a little from a law school that is not dependent upon state funds and not organized solely for the purpose of affording the youth of the state opportunities for a legal education. In such a school I think it the function of the instructor to teach the law as it is, as it has been decided in the state, rather than the law as he deems it should be. Of course, I would not have neglected a broad and deep study of the fundamental principles which lie at the foundation of the common law. In addition to this, the leading decisions in the state, the statutes where the common-law rule has been modified, enlarged, or abrogated, should be referred to and consulted. If a decision of the Supreme Court in the state is in conflict with the current of authority elsewhere, that fact should be noted, the attention of the students called to it, and investigation and discussion invited, so that they may consider the merits of the conflicting views. But, in the final analysis, they should be impressed with the idea that the decision is the law of that jurisdiction. Especially in matters of practice should this policy control. In the moot court, as I view it, the exercises should parallel as much as possible the work of the different courts in the state.

And this brings me to a consideration of what I regard as the most interesting part of the President's paper, and one upon which

gentlemen of this Association entertain quite conflicting views: Should the law school teach practice? I have heard gentlemen in this Association and elsewhere contend that it is not the function of the law school to teach pleading and practice, and that it cannot be successfully done. At the same time practitioners of prominence are constantly complaining that the law schools are thrusting upon the bar graduates with no adequate conception of practice or of methods of procedure. What is the function of the American Law School? Certainly not that of the law department in a German university, where the science of law solely is taught, where no lessons are assigned, no text-books used, no cases studied, no examinations or quizzes held, but where the sole aim is research and an increase in the stock of human knowledge. We are supposed to be engaged in preparing young men to practice law; and to my mind the training which the law student gets in the drafting of papers, in the preparation of cases for trial, and in the trial of them, is just as beneficial as the training which the student in an engineering school gets in the workshop, the student of chemistry gets in the laboratory, or the student of medicine gets in the dissecting room. Gentlemen who are so free to declare that the attempt to teach practice and pleadng in the American Law School has been a failure have had a different experience from some of us. That it has been successfully done in the University of Michigan-one of the oldest law schools, the largest law school, the most popular law school, and the best equipped law school (so far as material equipment is concerned) of any law school in the Westno one conversant with the facts will gainsay.

You will pardon me for saying that it has been a feature in the Law School of the University of Illinois, ever since its organization, and we think it has been a success. Of course, to successfully teach practice, the same labor must be devoted to the course as is devoted to a course in substantive law I was not connected with the Law School of the University of Illinois as a member of its faculty, for the first six years after its organization; but the practice court work was conducted by members of the Appellate Court, of which I was a part. Turn about, we would go to the University weekly and submit cases to the students, upon which pleadings were drafted and all the necessary steps taken, as in the trial of a live case. The cases were selected from those that we had under consideration at Springfield; the names of the parties being changed, of course. That policy continues, and the cases that are made up are live ones taken from the records of the Appellate Court and of the circuit court, called out and selected. I want to say to you that there is no branch of the work in our department that creates the interest and the enthusiasm among students

that the practice work does, carried along those lines.

R. G. Anderson, Trinity College Law School.

I have a word to suggest about one idea that the chair dropped which I have not heard discussed by any gentleman to any appreciable extent. If, as has been said by the gentleman from Illinois, the object of the law school is to assist the law student for practical results, it seems to me there ought to be some instruction along the line of the use of those law books that he talked about that should be upon the shelves in the library of every law school. He instanced the school that had a few old musty books, which had been given to it by practical lawyers who had no further use for them. The President mentioned briefly the subject of text-books. Possibly his modesty forbade his going into details, because he is the author of an excellent work on law books and how to use them. But I want to say this: If you are going to make the law library of value to the student, if you are going to make his course practical, if you are going to enable him to have power in social and in political life, you have got to teach him how to use the law books that are in the library of your school and that are going to be in his own library after he goes out into active work.

As to requiring students to be college graduates, or at least high school graduates, and about dry goods clerks and steer stickers studying law in the law schools at night, mention of which has been made here, I want to say, gentlemen, that I have seen dry goods clerks and other men who were employed in the daytime, who attended a law school at night, who could find more law in one hour than some college graduates I have known could find in a week. Why? Because they had taken a course in legal bibliography and the use of law. I have had occasion to meet lawyers out in practice, and law school teachers in their work, and Supreme Court judges on the bench, and I want to say that you would be astonished if you knew how few of them realized the actual nature of some of the law books that are in existence, even some of the books that are on their own shelves. What good will it do to have all the law reports, the English reports and the Canadian reports and the reports of the United States courts on your shelves, if that is all you are going to teach the students about them? You are

going to cite them the cases, are you? After the student graduates, he won't have you to cite cases for him; he has got to find them for himself. How is he going to do it? I did not hear the word digest or encyclopedia of law used. The student must learn how to use those books, otherwise he will be in

the position of the lawyer that the President spoke of in his address, who searched for the needle under the haystack, when he didn't even know whether it was there or not. The young graduate must find the law, when he doesn't even know whether it is in a single one of those volumes of reports and he has not been taught how to read up on it.

This is all that I am going to say-that you ought to include in your course, however brief it may be, a course on legal bibliography and the use of law books.

E. G. Lorenzen, Dean, George Washington University Law School.

I believe, gentlemen, that the undergraduate work of our law schools has been

substantially developed. We have passed through the first period of legal education in this country. We certainly the better law schools-have solved the problem of turning out efficient lawyers. The training of good lawyers will always remain the first duty of our American law schools. The function of the university law school, however, is not confined to the turning out of mere lawyers. A second duty, emphasized by the European law schools, to which Judge Harker has referred, rests upon our law schools. They must assist in the reform and development of our law. Our law is in need of adaptation to the changing conditions of social and economic life. In the period of law reform upon which we are entering the university law schools must be more potent factors in the improvement of our law than they have been in the past. We need men on our law faculties able to bring to the solution of our legal problems every possible light, whether it be derived from our own legal system or from that of another country. The time has come for the leading law schools of this country to establish graduate departments of law. Our millionaires could render no greater service to the public than by endowing research professorships, the holders of which shall devote their main thought and strength, not to teaching, but to legal scholarship.

question of the advisability of spanking children-it depends on the child. A system which will produce most beneficial results in one law school, may in another, where conditions are different, work positive harm. I shall, therefore, not attempt to defend, on the one hand the thesis that the honor system is good, or on the other hand the thesis that it is bad; but shall confine myself to the statement of certain principles whichso it appears to me-a law faculty should recognize in discussing the question of the advisability of the adoption of the system, and I shall also indicate the conditions which I believe make for and against good results from the system.

I suppose we will all admit that the primary duty of the faculty of any school-law or other-is its duty to the public, and that in a professional school the duty to the public can be best fulfilled by the elevation of the profession. To pass to a pertinent example: It is the duty of the law faculty to keep improper persons from the Bar. A person who will cheat in examinations is not a fit person to be a lawyer. It is a duty of a law faculty to do all in their power to prevent such a person from graduating. The adoption of the honor system does not relieve the faculty of this duty. If, under such a system, men who are willing to cheat come in larger numbers to the Bar, the faculty cannot defend the adoption of the system on the ground that, taken as a whole, it is better for the school, or on the ground that most of the students are benefited by it. The primary duty is, as pointed out, to serve the public through the elevation of the profession, and it appeals to me that, from a moral point of view, what the legal profession most needs to-day, is not so much an increase in the number of moral lawyers, as fewer immoral ones.

Another principle which should be