In the year 1893 (see report for that year, pp. 44 and 45) Mr. James Lewis Anderson introduced a resolution requesting the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar to take up again and present to the next legislature the bill which had been previously defeated in that body. That resolution was adopted.

In the year 1894 (see report for that year, p. 49) the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, in a report signed by James Lewis Anderson and W. M. Lile, said that the bill had been introduced into the legislature as contemplated by the resolution of the previous year, but that they could not get it so much as reported from the committee. They add:

"Various reasons were assigned by certain members of the committee, and of the legislature, for not acting upon the bill. Some seemed to think that the present law was sufficient, while others objected to certain provisions of the bill

It is thought by many members of the bar that the qualification required for admission to the bar is of little consequence, since merit will soon be discovered and properly rewarded, and incompetence will as quickly be detected, and ignorance or moral turpitude will soon find their proper places in the estimation of the community, and will receive no patronage for their support Your committee are not unmindful of the fact that many deserving young men, desiring to enter the profession, have very limited opportunities as to time, and limited means for fitting themselves for the practice. There are few, however, who are unable to devote sufficient time, either in a lawyer's office or at one of the law schools of the State, to qualify him to pass such an examination as would be required under a conservative and well regulated law on the subject.

"It should not be the object of the profession to exclude any who are qualified and deserving. There is a wide difference between such a system as is recommended and the one we now have of practically without restriction licensing every one who offers himself."

In the year 1895 (see report of that year, p. 62) the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar submitted a report signed by James Lewis Anderson, Beverly T. Crump and William B. McIlwaine, and with their report the drafts of two bills proposed to be introduced in the next legislature on this subject. The first mentioned bill, having reference to qualification for admission to the bar, contemplated an examination of applicants to be held by a commission or board of examiners in several districts throughout the State. In opposing this scheme and insisting upon an examination by the Court of Appeals, Professor Charles A. Graves said:

"When that is done we can be sure of two things: First, that the standard for admission to the bar will be uniform; and, secondly, that those who come to the bar will come prepared. I am sure that the judges of the court of appeals will give a sufficient examination to insure this." (Page 29).

Mr. R. L. Parrish offered a resolution that the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar be directed to present to the General Assembly a bill requiring the judges of the court of appeals, or any three of them, to examine all applicants for license to practice law; and that said bill shall provide that each person so applying for examination shall pay a fee of $. . . . to cover expenses. (Pages 37-38). Mr. Parrish's resolution, after amendment by inserting the words "five dollars" was adopted.

(Page 40).

The new law was enacted in 1895, as the result of all this work of the Association.

In the year 1897 (see report, page 87), the report of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar submitted by James Lewis Anderson, Chairman, after referring to the new law on the subject of admission to the bar which had been recently enacted, and comparing the number of admissions before and after that enactment, continues:

Virginia has placed herself beside the other advanced States of the Union on this subject, both in the

passage and the execution of the law governing admission to the bar.

"Examinations by the judges of the supreme court have been sufficiently rigid to keep out the ignorant, and yet eminently practical and sufficiently easy for any one qualified to practice."

If abreast of the advanced States, then, where is she now? In the year 1898 (see report, page 54), the report of this committee, signed by James Lewis Anderson, W. Roy Stephenson, and John D. Horsley, says:

"The law regulating admission to the bar, which went into effect two years ago, has, as far as your committee can ascertain, given universal satisfaction to the profession, and the law has been wisely and judiciously administered."

In the year 1904 (see report, page 57), Mr. M. P. Burks submitted a report on behalf of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar-which, however, is improperly styled in the report as "Report of the Judiciary Committee”— and, referring to the requirement that applicants shall stand an examination before the Supreme Court of Appeals, says:

"No better tribunal, perhaps, could be selected for this task. The learning, experience and impartiality of the judges qualified them in an eminent degree to judicially determine the fitness of the men who apply for admission. This duty the judges have faithfully and impartially performed. Written examinations are given twice a year... The scope taken by the line of questions asked is sufficiently broad to enable the judges to tell with reasonable accuracy the qualifications of the applicants . . . During the past year ninety-seven men have taken these examinations, of whom eighty-one were successful. The thanks of the Association and of the profession are due to the judges of the Court of Appeals for their faithful execution of this statute."

When this Association was expressing its thanks to the Court of Appeals only 16% of the applicants failed. Now I call attention to two tables comparing the results as shown by examinations made by the Court of Appeals and the Board of Law Examiners.

COMPARATIVE TABLE

Of Examinations held by the Court of Appeals and by the Board of Law Examiners, respectively.

And this, mind you, in spite of the fact that since the system was changed all our law schools have extended their courses of study and students were supposed to be far better prepared. They were not unworthy applicants but those who seemed to be specially prepared for the examinations, and yet we have an average of 50% of failure under these more favorable conditions! Some one has called this, and very properly so, I think, "A slaughter of the innocents."

What inference is necessarily to be drawn from this situation? I submit that either the examinations made by the Court of Appeals were tremendously lax and inadequate, or the examinations made by our present Board are too severe. Under such a showing why should we adopt the recommendation of this report and make these examinations still more severe? If we adopt the report instead of 50% of failures what might we have? If the spirit of this report were adopted a fellow would be a rara avis to get through one of these examinations. Don't you see the danger of the situation? I have shown you how hard it is to get the legislature to deal with this subject at all. They have had an almost insuperable suspicion that we were trying to create a lawyer's trust; that we were trying to keep out worthy young men; that those of us who were already inside the fence wanted to keep up the bars. The legislature turned a deaf ear to us year after year, and only after many attempts by this Association made any change. If this report were adopted would they not have reason to think that their suspicions were being realized? They would say: "Here is just what we told you fifteen years ago would happen. This is just the first step in the direction of a final creation of a lawyers' trust. It ought to be dissolved." That is the way it strikes me this thing would work out.

We are not the only Association suffering from this so-called reform. Complaints have gone up in other States, and I think we are on the eve of a reaction.

In his address before the American Bar Association in 1911, on Law Schools and Admission to the Bar, Hon. John B. Sanborn, speaking of the proper test of fitness for admission, says:

"I have become firmly convinced that the law school