which tries to give instruction in the art as well as the science of practice, which leaves out the fundamental principles which underlie all practice, and attempts to follow the shifting codes and practice acts of various States, is wasting the time both of its faculty and its students. This should frankly be left to the office, either before or after admission to the bar

"It thus appears to me that the law school must leave to the office the clinical work of real practice, and must base its claim to a required preparation for bar examinations on the fact that it alone can furnish. . a systematic training in the fundamentals of the science of law, namely, its general substantive principles and their application to various states of facts.”

In the discussion that same year which was had on the report of the Committee on Admission to the Bar, Hon. Wm. R. Fisher, of Philadelphia, stated the proper test to be, that applicants for admission “should have a practical command of real professional tools; . should be trained to think and to work as a lawyer."

How do lawyers think and work? Brother Hughes, in a letter to the Virginia Law Register, sent after this question was brought up at Old Point Comfort, says they take nothing for granted, but always go to the books and see what the law is. Why should not those seeking a law license be permitted to do the same thing? It is admitted that a member of our bar in full practice for many years should not be expected to pass one of these examinations by our State Board. I hold that if a young man who fails on such examination is unfit for admission to the bar, then the older man who cannot stand the same test is unfit to remain at the bar, and should be put out! Of the two ignoramuses he is far more dangerous to the public, because more trusted by the public.

Now, Mr. President and gentlemen, for these reasons I think we have gone quite far enough in throwing difficulties in the way of young men aspiring to join us in the practice of our profession. Young men cannot be expected to know everything when they

come to the bar.

You cannot expect to load him down with this multitude of subjects the committee is recommending. He would be more than a Solomon if he were able to come to the bar prepared to answer such questions as are put to him on these various subjects.

I might name several subjects that could be added to that list. I did not hear read in the report anything about patents, or trade marks, and yet when I came to the bar one of the first cases I had was a trade mark case, a very important one. I had hardly heard of a trade mark. But I knew something about the principles of law. I had learned something about how to handle the tools of our profession. I knew where to look for trade mark law, and, when I found it, how to apply the principles involved. I did not have a great deal of difficulty in mastering that subject, although I was perfectly innocent of it when the case came into my hands. And yet we are told these young men must be ready to answer any question asked by the Examining Board! I say that this thing can be carried to an absurd extreme, and that that is the tendency of it. Mark my words, gentlemen, the legislature the first thing you know is going to brush the whole thing away and the bars will be down on the ground instead of being so high that nobody can get over them.

Mr. Robert B. Tunstall, of Norfolk: What is the precise question before the meeting?

The President: The adoption of the report of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.

Mr. Tunstall: Am I correct in assuming that if this report is adopted it will carry with it the favorable recommendation of this Association to the Board of Law Examiners as to all of the matters stated in the report?

The President: That would be the effect of such action.

Mr. Tunstall: And, conversely, if the report were rejected that action would carry with it the rejection by this Association

of the recommendations contained therein and notice to the Board of Law Examiners that we are opposed thereto?

The President: That would be the effect of it, no doubt.

Mr. Tunstall: Under those circumstances, and because the report embraces such a variety of subjects as to render quite difficult dealing with it as a whole, I think the proper thing to do would be to refer the report to the Association sitting as a Committee of the Whole, let that committee discuss the various items, one by one, and report the result of such deliberations to the Association. I therefore move that the Association do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider this report made by Professor Raleigh C. Minor as Chairman, and, after deliberating thereon, make a report to the meeting.

(The motion was seconded by Secretary Minor).

Judge A. W. Wallace, of Fredericksburg: I submit a motion that the report of the committee be laid on the table, which, if carried, I take it would be a gentle suggestion to the Board of Law Examiners.

Mr. Robert M. Hughes, of Norfolk: The effect of laying this report on the table at this time would be that of preventing those present from hearing but one side of the question, and if the gentlemen will permit me to do so I would like to make a brief statement before he makes his motion.

Judge Wallace: For the present I will withdraw my motion to lay on the table, and do so in order that Mr. Hughes may not be prevented from stating the other side of the case.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. President and gentlemen, I want to say at the very outset that the members of the Board of Law Examiners have taken the discussion of this subject in no personal way. We are glad to have the discussion by members of this Association. We want the moral support of the Association behind us, and when the resolution of last summer was referred to the com

mittee one of the first things I did as Chairman of the Board of Law Examiners was to put myself in touch with that committee and invite them to meet us in conference in November in Richmond. When that committee was appointed the President of this Association did me the honor of naming me its chairman, but I did not think that a very consistent position to occupy, and therefore when the committee met us in Richmond last November at my suggestion Professor Minor was elected chairman pro tem, and I had no further connection with it except in an advisory way.

As to the general policy of our Board, I will say we welcome and invite the suggestions that are made, but I do not want to be understood as appearing here as an apologist. I do not think there has been anything in our examinations that calls for criticism, and, as far as I know, the only considerable criticism that has fallen to our lot has been the usual criticism that emanates either directly or indirectly from some of the young gentlemen who came to grief. They have at least the privilege of "cussin' out the court."

In reference to the general policy of the statute, I want to say that I presume when the legislature of Virginia changed the system of examinations from the Court of Appeals to a Board of Law Examiners it had some reason for it. Certainly no member of our Board, so far as I know, had anything whatever to do with shaping the statute under which the Board was organized. That Act is in the printed proceedings. It prescribes a lot of things we cannot change; and yet last summer at the meeting of the Bar Association the resolution offered by my friend, Mr. Patterson, and in the discussion of that resolution, the request was made. to change our rule which required an interval of at least six months between examinations. We could not do that. That provision was in the statute; it was not created by our rule.

Only the year previous to that I had gone before a committee of the legislature and requested them to make that period five months instead of six, so as to give everybody an opportunity of standing a second examination.

I want to say also, gentlemen, that I do not consider I am at the head of a kindergarten. We have not consciously increased

the difficulties of our examination; nor have we intentionally done so. Our idea is that the examination ought to be of a character to require at least a two-years' course of study in order to pass it. Of the forty-eight States of the Union thirty-nine have gone to the system of the examining board. Very few have the system of examination by courts. One or two have the system of examination by the law schools; and that means practically putting everything within the power of the law schools, and compelling men, in order to pass an examination, to take a course at a law school.

When I was appointed a member of the Board I took the trouble of writing the secretary of every one of those thirty-nine other State boards, asking that there be sent to me samples of their examinations and rules. I now speak advisedly and only after very considerable study of the subject when I say our examinations are very much below their average; in fact, far below the average of other States. So that notwithstanding what the gentlemen have stated in their report, and notwithstanding what others may feel, I speak as the result of close study when I say that our examinations are much easier than the great majority of State examinations. The most of them extend through two or three days, and have a good many other requirements. Some require that no man can stand who has not had the equivalent of a high school course. Some go further than that and say no man can stand an examination who has not the equivalent of an A. B. degree at a school of law. We have no requirement of that sort. Anybody can come before our Board and stand for the examination; yes, even though never having read law at all. Nobody is prevented from taking the examination if he sees fit so to do. And if he comes

Judge Watts, of Portsmouth:

(Interposing) Will you allow me to ask a question right there? What regard does your Board pay to a diploma from the University of Virginia or Washington and Lee University?

Mr. Hughes: None whatever. Our examinations are held anonymously. I will explain that: