vate and in a friendly manner such student; and if he shall deny on his honor as a Gentleman the offense of which it has been believed he was guilty, such denial shall be taken as conclusive evidence of his innocence.

"But in all cases when a Student or Students shall be believed to have committed an offense and shall on his Honor as a Gentleman deny it and aver his innocence, such declaration shall be taken by a Professor as conclusive proof of his innocence, because the convocation is satisfied that no Student will degrade himself by falsehood, and that an appeal to his Honor will never be made in vain."

Contrast with these provisions the features of the honor system prevailing at the University of Virginia, which has been so eloquently portrayed to us this evening by our distinguished guest, at Princeton, at Vanderbilt University, and at the George Washington University. The honor system is expressly defined, by the constitution of the honor system at the George Washington University, "as the placing of the responsibility for rectitude in examinations upon the student body." The constitutions of the other law schools where the honor system exists do not as a rule contain an express definition of the honor system, but their provisions make it perfectly plain that they understand it in the sense of student supervision of examinations. Each of them provides for the appointment by the student body of a committee intrusted with the enforcement of the honor system. Each imposes upon all members of the class the obligation not only to refrain from giving aid in examinations, or seeking aid, but also that of reporting to the student committee all violations of the honor system. Each finally requires the student at the end of the examination to certify that he has neither given nor received unauthorized aid of any kind.

It is clear, therefore, that in its modern sense the honor system means student supervision in the conduct of examinations instead of faculty supervision.

Sometimes it is said that the faculty has no right to shift to the student body the responsibility of seeing to it that the degree is obtained by fair means. The answer to this objection given by Dean Lile, which I heartily approve, is that if the student body is willing to assume the obligation, and the faculty is satisfied that the honor system in the institution concerned is operating with success and is eradicating cheating more effectually than any other system, its duty is fully discharged. Dean Lewis does not go so far as to say that the faculty has no right to shift its responsibility in this regard. He says:

"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 the duty of a

law faculty to do all in its power to prevent such a person from being graduated. The adoption of the honor system does not relieve the faculty of its duty. If, under such a system, men who are willing to cheat in larger numbers come 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." I wish Dean Lewis had made it plain whether he regards the system of supervision as more effective than the honor system in preventing cheating at examinations. To my mind there can be no doubt that the honor system, honestly enforced, is far more effective towards this end than that of faculty supervision. Faculty supervision may take one of two forms. In the one it is made the duty of the professor in charge of the course to see that the examination is conducted honestly. In the other monitors are intrusted with this duty. It will readily be admitted, I think, that if the desire to cheat exists the professor alone is unable to prevent its execution. Under the monitor system there may seem to be more doubt in this regard. I, for one, believe that under the monitor system there is actually more cheating than would be the case if the professor alone was in charge of the examination. From students who have been under the monitor system I know it to be a fact that good students give assistance and compare their answers during the examination, simply because they enjoy the sport of outwitting the monitors. No system, of course, will prevent cheating absolutely. But under the honor system, where the student is trusted, and where each member of the class is responsible to his class to see to it that the examination is conducted fairly, there is every incentive for the honest student to conduct himself properly. The member of the class who is morally weak will be encouraged in the right direction, while the student who is honest only from necessity will be compelled by the watchful eyes of all around him to refrain from resorting to unauthorized aid in the examination.

But it is objected: The honor system may be all right in theory, but it does not operate successfully in practice, because students will not discharge their obligation of reporting infractions of the rules. It is evident, of course, that mere schoolboys might regard such reporting as tale-bearing; but there is no danger that serious-minded men, as our law students are, will regard it in that light. All they are requested to do is to enforce the rules they have laid down for their own selfgovernment. As well might a citizen, giving notice to the proper authorities of the commission of a crime, as was pointed out by Dean Lile, be regarded as a tale-bearer.

The only question the law faculties will have to answer is whether the law students of their school are capable of self-government. If a good many of their students are

trifling, or if the spirit of hero-worship with regard to athletes exists in the law school, or there are other factors disturbing the moral vision, or tending to dull the sense of responsibility of a considerable portion of the student body, the proper conditions for successful self-government, of course, do not exist. In the better law schools of this country I have no doubt the student body may be safely trusted in the administration of the honor system. As far as the experience of the different schools that have enforced the honor system is concerned, we have the testimony of Dean Lile as to its successful operation at the University of Virginia. In regard to Princeton, Professor Fine has remarked: "It has banished cheating from our examinations. Before the system was introduced there was a great deal of cheating in the Princeton examinations." As to the operation of the honor system in the Law School with which I have been connected for the last six years, I may say that it has been an unqualified success. All the students with whom I have talked were convinced that there was no cheating at our examinations. During the past six years I believe two cases were actually discovered, and in each instance the guilty student left the university.

In many law schools it may be felt that the question before us to-night is of no great practical importance, because they regard cheating as a rare occurrence in their schools. In examinations based upon concrete cases, in which the teacher insists upon correct reasoning, rather than a correct answer, it is difficult in the nature of things to give or receive real assistance. But even here, no doubt, some cheating occurs. To the repre

sentative of such schools I would suggest that the honor system should properly be viewed from a larger standpoint than that of a mere device calculated to prevent cheating at examinations, and from such a stand'point it has a claim upon their thoughtful consideration. There is no doubt that the honor system, faithfully administered, will result in the establishment of a more cordial relationship between faculty and students than is possible where the members of the faculty at times must play the role of detectives. As a training for life in a democratic country like ours, the honor system is of the greatest value, because it involves training in self-government. In its effect upon the law student in particular we should not forget, as was suggested by Dean Lile, that the placing of responsibility upon the student will develop in him those moral qualities of which the lawyer, above all other citizens, is in need. A lawyer must be a person in whom absolute trust and confidence may be reposed. Any system which renders the future lawyer more worthy of his trust should receive every encouragement.

Objection has been made to certain details of the honor system. I will speak of only one, namely, the signing of the pledge. I, for

one, see nothing objectionable to it. It appears to me, on the contrary, a wise provision, because it serves to remind the students at every examination of the obligation assumed by them. I would advocate even the practice prevailing at Vanderbilt University, where, in addition to the blank pledge, there is printed on the first page of the examination book an explanation of the honor system in these words: "All examinations are conducted under the honor system. Students are under pledge neither to give nor receive assistance; they demand that this pledge be faithfully kept by all. To this end they agree to report to the Student Honor Committee any real or apparent violation of the spirit or letter of this law."

My conclusion is, gentlemen, that, while the honor system should not be imposed upon the students of any law school, its introduction should receive the hearty encouragement and enlist the sympathetic interest of all law faculties.

J. B. Lichtenberger, University of Pennsylvania.

As a teacher of some experience in different schools where this system has been tried, and my college education having been received at Princeton, where we had the system, I wish to say that I took some of my examinations entirely in the same room with all of the other students of my classes, and I have also taken some of them away from the other members of the class; I have taken some of them in my own room and some in the classroom. During the time that I was at Princeton, where I saw some of the workings of the honor system, and after seeing it in effect in the University of Virginia and other Southern schools, I became strongly impregnated with that system. In the different schools with which I have been connected I tried it upon my students, and while I never pressed the matter upon them with any very great vehemence, still I impressed upon them the idea of the strength of character that it developed and the responsibility that it placed upon them and the results / that were to be obtained from its careful and considerate workings. After I had taught for a year or two, I came to the University of Pennsylvania as a student, and at the end of the very first year the agitation came up as to whether the class would adopt the honor system at that time, which year would close in a few days. My class voted for the honor system, and as president of that class I at least thought that I would most strenuously insist on the system in the University of Pennsylvania. This was for several reasons: First, because the student body of the Pennsylvania Law School is furnished from many different schools, from almost every state of the United States and from all portions of the country, not from any one college, but from many, and I felt that, as

long as these men who were not of one class, men who were not continually associating with each other, many of them who never met before they met in the classroom, that if they desired to adopt this system it could not be from any public sentiment on the part of the different members of that particular class, and I felt that it should be tested. The honor system was tried, and I am glad to say that it has been a success and a benefit to all. They have accustomed themselves to the practice of detecting cheating. I have noticed myself a number of cases, and other men have done the same. The question was brought up what to do with these men. There were one or two cases where it was reported of men who knew of the cheating going on in the classes, where men had given and received aid. Then came the fight. The second year we made a stronger fight than we did the year before, and it was put up to the class to settle. If every man would report any infraction of the rules that he saw, then, of course, it would be a straight honor system. I want to say that this next year there was not nearly so much cheating as the first year, and I think that was due more or less to the very severe fight which we had in the classroom over this question. Last year the question was up again, and I voted to leave it to the law school again and let them decide as to what should be done. We have tried the monitor system. We had a monitor at one time who was a member of the Philadelphia bar, and we have had other monitors from other places close by-men who were a committee, and were supposed to report if they saw any evidences of improper practices during the examinations.

Now, I want to ask you, gentlemen, on that point, you who are members of the profession, and who are practicing lawyers many of you: Do you not know members of your bar whom you realize are not competent to properly represent clients in the courts? I ask you, farther, if you have ever. taken a step towards going before a committee of your bar who has cognizance of those matters, and make any complaints as to their method of practicing your profession? I will wager that none of you have ever taken a single step towards correcting those evils. You know that you know many practicing lawyers who are utterly unfit to represent clients. Yet you will not bring charges against these men and present them to your committees, and still you think that it is eminently proper to adopt a system that forces students under its workings to report fellow members whom it sees indulging in questionable practices. I claim that you are putting these students upon exactly the same plane that you are now occupying in relation to incompetent members of your bar. You say that by this honor system the weak are made strong and they are enabled

to resist temptation. That may be true, but there are certain men who are fairly strong that find it difficult to resist the temptation of looking at a paper where the answer to a question can be read. You are by this system putting these men up to temptation, and they will do many things under the honor system that they would not do under the watchful eye of some monitor whom they respect. Many of you realize the effect of placing men under a very serious temptation. I claim that it is not fair to the student that he should be subjected to this temptation, without which he would not be so sorely tried, and perhaps fall by the wayside. I claim that no law school should adopt for their students the honor system unless every man in the school is willing to say that he will report any cheating that he sees in the examinations. I glory in the University of Virginia and in the other schools of the South which have such an honor system. I glory in any school that can build up such a sentiment; but I insist that you cannot and ought not to place upon our student bodies any stronger obligations than we are willing to take upon ourselves as members of our local bar.

E. B. Evans, Drake University Law School.

I have been very much interested in this discussion from the standpoint of one who has given the matter a great deal of thought and who has been tempted year after year to put it into his own school. What I am anxious to know is whether or not it would be practical, or how it could be presented or carried out to a successful conclusion.

I realize from my own experience the impossibility of keeping out cheating in examinations, even though the professor himself is watching and is present every moment during the examination. I have read examination papers where, by reason of my knowledge of the student that brought them, I knew, although I could not prove it, that somewhere along the line of that examination he had had assistance; yet I have been unable to detect it. And I know that a student body, one that was properly organized, when matters of this nature were brought before them, would be a hundred fold more potent in the discovery of such cheating than the professor himself, or than any other monitor that might be placed over the student.

It is an embarrassing matter in our school, because we have a number of professors who are engaged in actual practice-have one member who is from the district bench, and two professors who are engaged in actual practice, and who take the early morning hours for their lectures. These men help to make up the faculty largely through patriotic motives, and are there solely for

that reason. I think they are more efficient in their instructions and are relied upon to a greater extent than are men that come fresh from the Eastern law schools, or any other law schools, who have never had any practical experience; but their time is limited. They have no time that we can command for giving their personal attention to their examinations. They must be handled through a monitor. So that this question appeals to me because of the inefficiency of the service of any monitor that I have ever been able to get hold of, and who seem often to falter between their loyalty to the faculty and the men cheating.

W. G. Hastings, Dean, University of Nebraska Law School.

mind as to whether I am personally in favor of the adoption of this system or not, but on my return to my own institution I shall take the matter up with my faculty and my students. Like Mr. Lichtenberger, I do not believe in any compromise measure. I am still of the opinion that, as the manager of a national school, I will hardly be justified in throwing over a system that has been in use for years and adopting some other system until I am sure that I can obtain the hearty aid of all connected with the school. I think all, before they adopt the system, should be able to frankly admit their ability to carry it into effect, and that, in my opinion, can only be accomplished where the entire management of the institution is in full accord as to its adoption.

ence in this matter. Last winter, just before the semester examinations, I was waited upon by a committee from the school with which I am connected, and asked if the honor system had been adopted in connection with the examination about to be conducted. I asked those gentlemen if they had the unanimous consent of their respective classes, and they said, "No." I asked them if they thought that I would be justified in making such a demand upon those who were not thoroughly conversant with the conditions, and I asked them if they thought that they could get the unanimous consent of their classes. They expressed some doubt about it. I told them I should hesitate about adopting this system without knowing at least the proportion of each class that wished the system put in force; that, furthermore, I should have no hesitancy in accepting the declaration of each of these three classes that they wished the system adopted, but until I could obtain that, and until I could reconcile my own views upon the subject, and was sure that the system would be carried out, I declined to take the responsibility of changing the system.

We have had some objections to the monitor system in use in the school, but I think the system has been fairly successful. I have no doubt but what there have been cases of cheating, like my friend from Iowa has stated. I have had papers come before me for the accuracy of which I could not account upon any other theory than that there had been some assistance rendered the student, and that he had had some special knowledge gained from somebody outside of himself. It is admittedly a success in many institutions, and, while the monitor system which we use has not been entirely free from objections and complaints, I have never felt, and I do not yet feel, that I am justified in changing it until I am certain of the hearty support of something more than the main student body.

I have not as yet conclusively made up my

University Law School.

I should like to add just a word to what has been said by our Nebraska friend and our Southern friends. In the North we are not personally opposed to the honor system, nor are we particularly in favor of it. Like my Nebraska friend, we are in favor of making an investigation of the system, with a view of noting whether it could be adopted with success in our institutions. I have talked with the different students in the school with which I am connected, in order to obtain the views of the student body and to ascertain whether or not, as a body, they favored the honor system. Unanimously they said, "No," they would not favor it. In this matter I think that perhaps a few words of explanation may not be amiss. In Nebraska you ought, perhaps, to know that a law degree there admits to the bar. A student at the Nebraska University, who would be asked to report upon his fellow student whom he saw cheating in an examination, would feel just as he would were he called upon to report upon him after he had been admitted to the bar. He is placed in exactly the same situation. He is placed in the same situation as he would be, were he asked to report, after he became a practicing attorney, upon a fellow member of the bar who is not acting in a just way, who is not acting in just the way that he ought to act. I have asked the students in regard to that, and they have said that they would not do it. They state that they would be perfectly willing to take the pledge in regard to their own actions, and show that there had been nothing out of the way, so far as they were concerned themselves; but they would not agree to take the responsibility of expelling a fellow member of their class who had been guilty of cheating.

I understand that in the University of Virginia and at Washington & Lee the students are willing to assume the responsibility of the conduct of the fellow classmen; in fact, they have assumed it. It is one thing to let

the student body assume the responsibility, and another thing to try to impose the honor system upon a student body who refuse to assume the responsibility. In this connection I should like to have some discussion from the Southern delegates and members on this problem as it exists in several of the schools, and particularly in the Northwestern. In the Northwestern we have a system whereby each student signs a pledge at the end of an examination; but the students assume no responsibility for the conduct of their fellow students. There is no such a thing as a court of appeals in the student body-no student court or committee of appeal. Now, as I understand Dean Lile, we have what I regard as the true honor system at the Northwestern; that is, a system of relying upon the individual student's honor, though the student has none of the supervision. But, as I understand Mr. Lichtenberger, we have not, according to his conception, the true honor system. because we do not have the student supervision in addition to the student pledge. A faculty member is always present when an examination takes place. He is there for the purpose of answering any question that may be asked in regard to a paper, but not for any other purpose. At the same time he is at liberty to impose any regulations upon the student body that he sees fit, which in his own opinion may prevent cheating. That last reserved right on the part of the teacher in attendance upon an examination, I understand, would be regarded by our Southern delegates as hostile to the true honor system conception, and I certainly would be very much pleased if some of them would make some criticism or suggest some improvement in regard to the system which prevails at the Northwestern.

Charles T. Terry, Columbia University Law School.

There are one or two observations which occur to me, as I have been sitting here listening to the discussion of this subject, that have seemed to be somewhat confusing, and which seem to me to have a very important bearing on this entire question. I cannot conceive how the honor system can prevail in any institution unless the faculty of the law school is willing to assume the responsibility for the honesty of the examinations. The responsibility for the honesty of the examination is on their shoulders, and not on the shoulders of the students, and it seems to me that a different rule would prevail than that which exists in an institution where, so to speak, the students act as the policemen of the examination. It seems to me, also, that such a system as that, where the student acts as a policeman, involves a considerable unfairness to the student, and he would be put in a different light to that class of students where that system did not

prevail. The students are not giving the examinations. It is the University or the Law School that is giving the examination. That being so, it makes it incumbent upon the body which gives the examination to really give them-mark them and grade them, and complete their work. That is a part of the system. That is a part of the examination. It is no more a part of the examination to mark the papers than it is to put the questions. The student who is in the examination hall should be there for one purpose, namely, to answer the questions that have been submitted to him. It is not fair, as I conceive it, to put upon his shoulders the additional burden of acting as a policeman over the rest of the class taking the examination. He should not have a burden put upon him to that extent, and have his mind distracted from his work by something which should be none of his business, as far as he is practically concerned. He might be disgusted, he might feel outraged, by noticing something not proper in the conduct of a fellow student taking the examination; but then that should be no part or parcel of his duty, while he is engaged in the important business of trying his best to pass the examination.

To my mind there is only one question here, and that is whether it is to our advantage to adopt the honor system in the various schools which we represent. It seems to me that we have wandered very far from the consideration of the question, and have gone into a discussion of questions which do not represent the honor system that was so interestingly discussed by Mr. Lile. The question, it seems to me, is whether or not the student shall be put upon his honor, and give a pledge at the end of his examination that he has neither given nor received assistance. I can conceive many arguments in favor of such a system, but I see no middle ground between that and the ordinary method of supervision that most of the schools have been accustomed to follow. I am not prepared to say but what a real honor system might not be a good thing. I don't presume to say whether it would result in strengthening the character of the student body or not. This is not a question of legal education, as has been raised by some of the members; but it is a question of the conduct of educational institutions. I can conceive, as I heretofore stated, of general educational methods that might be adopted that would probably strengthen the character of the students taking the examinations. But I see no middle ground between the real honor system and following the systems that we have been accustomed to follow.

J. C. Monnet, University of Oklahoma Law School.

There is one thing that has suggested itself to me, while I have listened to this dis