lation and Law Reform. Mr. Lewis H. Machen, of Alexandria, is chairman. Has that committee any report to present?

Mr. George Bryan, of Richmond: In the absence of Mr. Machen, who is now seeking an exalted station in the affairs of our Commonwealth, I think it is only fair to him to say on behalf of the committee that it is his fault that there is no report of this committee at this time. The committee feels that the State is reasonably safe in the matter of legislation until the middle of January next, when the General Assembly of 1914 will assemble,

The President: The next report is that of the Committee on Judiciary.

Mr. J. F. Bullitt, of Big Stone Gap: The committee has no report to offer.

The President: The next report is that of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, of which Prof. Raleigh C. Minor is Acting Chairman.

Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: I will read the report of the committee, as follows:

(See report at end of minutes.)

Any explanation the members of the Association would like to have of our report I shall be very glad to give.

Mr. George Bryan, of Richmond: I move the adoption of the report.

DISCUSSION ON

Report of Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.

Prof. C. M. CHICHESTER, of Richmond: Before that motion is put I would like to ask Professor Minor as to the object of the 90% provision; what good it will do?

Professor Raleigh C. Minor, of University of Virginia: Mr. President, the object we had in view in this provision was to

encourage the best possible preparation for the examination. We thought that the man who had done so well on a bar examination as to get a 90% grade deserved the advertisement that such a grade would naturally give him; that it would probably help him very materially in his future practice, and enable him to get a position in a law office that he would not otherwise be able to get; we further thought that he was entitled to have the public and attorneys of the State informed of the excellent work he had done at the bar examination. And, on the other hand, while he was receiving the credit to which his work entitled him, we did not see that any injury would be done to others who had not done quite so well.

Prof. Chichester. Mr. President, is this matter a subject for discussion at this time?

The President: It is.

Prof. Chichester: The very feature mentioned by Professor Minor would, in my opinion, justify doing away with that provision. I do not conceive that the Board of Law Examiners of Virginia is to be made the medium for advertising students who take and pass the examinations provided. Any one who has ever had experience with examinations, either in taking or giving them, must know that passing an examination very often is a matter of luck; that the grade is made very often because of nerve, and of a great many other things besides ability. A person given the advertisement mentioned because he happened in some instance to have made a higher mark than others taking the same examination at the same time to my mind would be highly improper, would be making the Board lend itself to an advertising scheme entirely beyond the scope of its work. It would be unfair to other persons of equal ability and equally worthy of the patronage of the public, but who did not happen to quite reach the grade suggested.

I think the present plan on that score the better one. In other words, if the test is made sufficiently severe, and if the standard is kept sufficiently high, and if the Board of Law Ex

aminers require, as they have done and doubtless will do, that the standard specified be met in every instance, I think that fact alone sufficient advertisement to the world for those who pass; a sufficient statement to the world that such men are capable of attending to the business submitted to them by the public. But to give any man who passes with a grade of 90% or better the additional advantage of such mention, no matter whether he attains such grade because of superior knowledge or by chance, would, I think, be going beyond the scope of the Board, and would be giving such man an advantage he has no right to have as the result of the grading of the examination papers.

Mr. A. W. Patterson, of Richmond: After hearing the distinguished gentleman read the report I am led to remark we should be very glad that we got into the bar before such requirements were prescribed. I believe that is the general sentiment of a large number of members of this Association.

It has appeared in print that at the last session of this Association, held at Old Point Comfort, I, as the author of the resolution which produced this report, made an attack, and a severe attack, it was said, upon the Board of Law Examiners. I want to say that such statement was wholly incorrect. Nothing was farther from my mind; and my personal relations with the members of that Board are such as to forbid anything of that kind. But I did feel that the time had come when inquiry should be made into the character of the examinations submitted to applicants, and for us to understand a little better just what the standard was and should be. I felt that the members of that Board would welcome any kindly criticism which we might see fit to make; that they were men of broad minds and devoted to the doing of the best thing for our profession, and that if they might make some mistakes they would be glad to have them pointed out to them. So anything I have said has been in the kindliest spirit, and with a desire to do some good if we may for our profession and this Association.

It seems to me that this report of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, which we have just heard read, has not met the purpose of the resolution referred to them

as it was intended it should be met. As I understand the report it simply recommends that the requirements for admission to the bar be made more stringent than they have been heretofore. That is all I can get out of it. Several new subjects are incorporated in it, and a good deal higher percentage laid on, and what the result of that would be remains to be seen.

Mr. President, I would like to remind this Association of the history of the present law on this subject, and the practice. This organization had its origin in a desire on the part of some of us—and I am old enough to have been one of the original members and founders of the Association-I say, this organization had its origin in a desire to raise the standard of our profession, to see to it that our personnel was what it should be, and what was said and done at that time, in the early years of this Association, will help us to understand the spirit which guided us in this reform.

The first step taken in this Association was in 1888, in the year when Mr. Thomas Tabb, of Hampton, moved for the appointment of a committee to consider the subject and make a report— that is, to inquire into and report upon the subject of admissions to the bar.

The next year, (1889), Mr. Alfred P. Thom, as chairman of the committee appointed in response to the motion just referred to, made the report of the committee to this Association, from which I want to read: The committee's report was accompanied by the proposed Act. This report throws a flood of light upon the spirit of the movement for reform in our practice governing admissions to the bar. Its object was to keep out unworthy characters, some of whom had theretofore crept into the professional ranks, and it was especially directed against

"An ignorant, illiterate, but, at the same time, aggressive race in our midst."

There seems to have been no thought of excluding worthy and well educated young men who might not be able to measure up to the highest standards of professional learning. The committee thought that an insistence upon proof of the probity and good moral character of the applicant would largely accom

plish the end then in view. They say "ignorance and illiteracy on their (the lawyers') part have never heretofore assumed conspicuous proportions, and except for the unhomogeneous character of our present population we would not foresee any special danger from these sources.

In his remarks upon this report Mr. Thom said: (See page 20 1889 annual report of this Association) "The prevailing idea in the committee was that the question before us was one not so much of maintaining a very exalted standard of acquirements at the time a man is admitted to the bar, because it is common experience that such acquirements usually speak for themselves, and men soon find their intellectual level; but at the same time we thought it proper to make the standard higher than at present, but not to make it so high that the legislature will refuse to adopt it . . . . And right here on that score I will say; think we are liable to have more trouble with the legislature. And their report went on to say: "The most important part of this subject is that in reference to the character of the applicants who are seeking admission."

The report and the act recommended therein were adopted by the Association.

In 1890 (see page 20 of report of that year) Senator J. Allen Watts, speaking on behalf of the committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, stated that the legislature had rejected the act proposed by this Association on the subject of Admission to the Bar. He said:

"The reasons for its defeat it is very difficult to discover One objection was that the bar should be open to all; that every man who could get clients had the right to clients; that they would all find their own level at some time, and every man ought to have a chance to see whether he was adapted to the profession of law or not.. . They (the legislature) seem to think that we are trying to keep out others on account of possible injury to ourselves. That seems to be the main objection to this bill, and I don't really think that anything can be done until another legislature has been elected, and more lawyers are elected to it."