Judge Watts, (Continuing): Has the percentage of those who pass your examination been larger since the University adopted the three years' course than before?

Mr. Hughes: I do not know about that. As I was going on to explain, we do not know

Judge Watts, (Continuing): Has your Board ever rejected any degree graduates of the University of Virginia or Washington and Lee University?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, some.

Judge Watts: Is that not a serious reflection upon those well known law schools, schools of high standing not only in Virginia but other States? Is it not a blow at the University of Virginia and Washington and Lee University as law schools when the State Board of Law Examiners rejects as incompetent those students that these great schools have said were competent to practice?

Mr. Hughes: I had not intended to answer that question in this connection, but will do so right now for fear I may overlook it. I will say that

Mr. R. A. McIntyre, of Warrenton: What my friend Judge Watts is getting at is this—and I only want to help in getting light on this subject as far as possible: Mr. Patterson has submitted these facts, that 69% of the applicants failed in the 1913 special examination. That being so we want you to tell us what percentage, or what number of that 69% were actual graduates of these two approved law schools? Certainly we want you to answer before you take your seat whether you consider your Board of Law Examiners, in their somewhat superficial examination of young men for admission to the bar, equal to the distinguished gentlemen who examined those same young men at the universities of this Commonwealth!

Mr. Hughes: If I can remember all of the questions that have been put to me without opportunity to answer them seriatim I will now attempt to answer them. I will say, in the first place, that as to the two law schools so far from being opposed to the present system of examination I understand that they are in favor of it. So at least the parties most affected are not complaining. They are

Mr. McIntyre: They are modest.

Mr. Hughes: And, proceeding to answer your question, I will say as to the number of Washington and Lee and University of Virginia graduates who have failed, under our system we grade the papers anonymously. We do not know when we reach a paper who the author was. As soon as we have finished our grading we give the papers to our clerk, and then he checks over the papers and makes up a list of the passes and separates them from the failures. The only information the young men have to put on their papers is their name and the address to which they want their notice sent. Therefore even after the list is published we do not know whether they were college men or not; whether University of Virginia or Washington and Lee men. We do not keep any statistics of that sort; and therefore my former answer to a question that we pay no attention to the diplomas of these schools is exactly right, because we grade the papers of applicants as I have explained. We do not want to know who they are. We have sons of friends to come before us, and have friends themselves. We do not want to know, and we cannot possibly therefore know when we grade these papers whether they are college men or not.

I am informed that the examination more particularly criticised was that of June, 1912. I will say that I took the trouble to run down the law schools of that year. My examination was not complete, because a man who took a degree three years ago might come before us in June and stand, and I could not go back through all that time. But I found in June, 1912, that eight university men stood-degree men, I speak of now-and one failed. Let me refer to one answer given by the man who failed

-and I will not call his name- at which I was rather surprised, because I heard he was an unusually good man, the question being

How would you set up the statute of limitations at law and in equity?

and the answer was

You would set up the statute of limitations both at law and in equity by demurrer.

We were a little surprised that a University graduate could give such an answer as that. Another question that we asked was—

What is a bill of review?

and his answer was

A bill of review would never lie after a final decree.

What he expected to review before a final decree was entered we could not exactly find out. I merely cite these as one or two instances.

On the same occasion twenty-two Washington and Lee men stood, and eighteen of them got through and four failed. On the other hand, twenty-one University men stood who had only taken the two years' course, and fourteen of them passed. So that it could not have been a bad examination if of the men who took the two years' course two-thirds passed.

The fact is, as is well known, an examination is not an infallible test of a man's capacity. We all know that from our own experience. There is a difference in men as to their constitutional make-up; and all things along that line enter into examinations. But we cannot help that. It is the test that has been in force in Virginia ever since it has been a Commonwealth, and it is the test that was prescribed by the legislature, not by us. No better test has yet been prescribed. But, in the end

Mr. R. E. Byrd, of Winchester: If I may interrupt you, with reference to the intent of that law, I will say that I happen to be the patron of it and know that it was intended simply to relieve the Court of Appeals of the work. That was all. It was not intended by that Act to increase the difficulties of the examination. There was no such intention at all. It was simply passed in order to relieve the Court of Appeals of the work that had theretofore been put upon them.

Mr. Hughes: That may be so, but we do know that this work was put upon the Board of Law Examiners, and that we, as the present members of that Board, are, at least in our opinion, carrying it out.

And that reminds me of something else I want to say: The Court of Appeals had been carrying on their examinations for several years before the work was put on the Board, and for several years, and including the last three or four examinations, there was not a single new question. Under these circumstances somebody in Charlottesville had published a quiz book, and he had organized a class to quiz, and fellows who had no idea of the general principles of law could go up there and take that quiz book and cram up, and pass the examination with flying colors. The last two examinations of the Court of Appeals, I am told— and we purposely did not look at them because we wanted to avoid asking any questions along that line—the last two examinations put up by the Court of Appeals were based entirely on questions taken from their former examinations.

The first thing our Board decided to do when we met was to do away with the idea of cramming and getting through by means of quiz books; and so far we have not asked in an examination a single question that had been asked in any of our previous examinations. It may be that we have asked some questions more or less in a new way, but if so it was unconsciously done. Therefore when a man gets through our examination he at least has not crammed through. I have no doubt that in the course of a few years we will have exactly the same experience that the Court of Appeals had. We cannot help that. If you commence putting up two or three examinations a year and keep it up for a

considerable length of time you cannot help repeating yourself; and therefore I say the likelihood is that in two or three years we will commence to repeat ourselves, and then our examinations will become easier. But the real reason why our examinations have been hard so far has not been because the questions asked were more difficult, or the standard higher, but because we have done our very best to prevent repetition and cramming. We certainly have accomplished that much.

Mr. Aubrey E. Strode: What, if any, standard of percentage do you require to pass?

Mr. Hughes: Well, we had not heretofore given that out, but

Mr. Strode: All right, it was not my intention to ask for any information that was not given out by your Board.

Mr. Hughes: I do not object to answering that now. For some time we kept it a secret. We require 75%.

Mr. Strode: On each subject?

Mr. Hughes. No, on the whole examination. This new rule suggested by your committee, if it goes into effect, would make some change in that respect. Now, gentlemen

Mr. Patterson (Interposing): May I ask a question?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly, but I hope my attention may not be taken away from any other questions that have been asked or any other points that have been raised, so that I will not think to answer them.

Mr. Patterson: If your argument holds good that the Court of Appeals propounded the same questions year after year, how is it that in January 1904 only 12% failed under their examination, while in 1907 48% failed?