resolution is one that necessarily cannot be framed in any more definite manner than it has been, and it would have to be left entirely to the court as to what is the fitness of the applicant to enter the profession. But it seems to me that the court would hardly be permitted to refuse a man because he had not studied law two years, unless that is incorporated in the statute under which the examinations are held. I do not see why, if they have the right to fix that arbitrary rule, they would not have the right to fix the rule that he should have a diploma from a law school, or that he had studied two years at a law school. It seems to me that, as to that portion of the resolution, we recommend to the court to do something they have not the power to do, as the Legislature only has the power.

Mr. George Bryan, of Richmond: Mr. President, in regard to what the gentleman has just said, I can give him the result of a little observation made in our sister State of Pennsylvania, where I lived for several years, and where, unless I am very much mistaken-I do not want to be too positive about it-the rule of court settles the whole thing. There the requirement is that three years shall be the time that the applicant shall have studied law. The rules of court of that State are most interesting. I do not care to digress, but there it seems that almost anything can be done by rule of court. Instead of going to the Legislature and having an act passed, you get a rule of court, and it is just as effective.

I wish to state my entire concurrence with Professor Lile in this matter, and also in what Mr. Parker has said as to the language of the suggestion; but Professor Lile can remove any doubt as to what he means by the court judging the fitness of the man, if he means, as I understood, that the man's examination papers shall be the test, and if he gives evidence in them that his education is defective the court can reject him. The objection is that this is opening a rather wide door. I know it is safe with our court, but at the same time we are acting for the future, and it is giving the court a good deal of authority

to say that it should be the absolute judge of whether a person is fit or not.

Now one word more of a practical nature. I suggest that either now or after the matter is in the hands of the committee for presentation to the court, some attention be paid to the language concerning the two years' study. A man can say, conscientiously perhaps, that he has studied law for two years when he has worked at some other occupation during the day and studied law at night. If I understand Mr. Lile's point, it is that he shall give his attention to the study of law for two years, and I should think it not inadvisable that some word of that nature, if such is Mr. Lile's idea, be added to this recommendation.

Mr. Lile: As to the power of the court to make these requirements, the statute seems to me to leave the qualifications of the applicant entirely to the discretion of the court. The court has already prescribed that they should be residents of the State for six months, and should be twenty-one years of age and of good moral character.

Mr. Bryan: Does not the statute prescribe that?

Mr. Lile: I think not. It did formerly. The language of the statute, as I recall it, is that the court shall pass upon both the learning and character of the applicant, and I think the court may apply any test of the applicant's learning that it considers proper. It need not give him any examination at all. It may say that any man who has studied law for three days may be admitted; it may say six months, or under this statute it may declare that no man who has not studied law for ten years shall be admitted. The court may apply any test it sees fit, whether an oral or a written examination, or a requirement of having studied law for so many years, or both. The court has seen fit thus far to require only a written examination. The suggestion is that it require two years' study along with the written examination. I have no doubt as to the power of the court to do that. Aside from that, it is very doubtful whether the Legis

lature has any power over this subject whatever. The English view is that admission to the Bar is a judicial matter, solely in the discretion of the courts, and that Parliament has nothing to do with it. In a recent decision in the State of Illinois (Re Day, 181 Ill., 73, 50, L. R. A., 519), wherein the Legislature undertook to interfere with the rules of court in this matter, the court brushed the Legislature aside, saying that the admission, like the disbarment, of attorneys was a judicial matter, entirely in the hands of the court. It is a question whether the Virginia court has not the right to make its own rules on this subject, regardless of the Legislature; but a recommendation to the court to add this additional qualification would be within the very language of the Act on the subject.

Referring to my friend Mr. Bryan's remarks as to what test the court should apply as to general education, that is to be left to the court just as we leave the test of professional qualifications. If the court can be trusted to pass upon the professional qualifications of an applicant, why can it not be permitted to pass upon his literary qualifications? I see no difference.

I should like to go very much further than these suggestions go, but I do not wish to shock this body by asking that the qualifications be made so high. I hope we shall get to the point in a few years where we shall require an academic education at least equal to a high-school course. That is what I should like now, but I know we are very conservative on this question, and I offer these suggestions only as an entering wedge at present— that the court shall reject any applicant whose examination papers show that he is absolutely unfit to practice the profession.

Mr. Parker: I do not want to take issue with my friend because I know that he has given more consideration to this subject than I have, but he laid down a proposition that is certainly startling to me, when he said that the courts of the Commonwealth have the right to say, on their own account and without the consent of the Legislature, who can practice law. I thought it was a matter of statutory legislation. The attempt has certainly been made to

regulate it by statute. In reference to the six-months' residence in the State and good character, that is a matter of statutory requirement; before a man applies to the Court of Appeals for examination, he has to have that certificate from his local court. As I recollect, the statute is that the only thing the Court of Appeals has to pass upon is whether or not the applicant stands a satisfactory examination. That, of course, gives them the power to go into the question as to whether that examination is satisfactory from a legal standpoint and an academic standpoint, whether because he does not answer the questions given him or for any other reason: that I concede. But I do not believe that the Legislature in the statute just mentioned has delegated to the court such broad authority as to establish an arbitrary rule that, although a man's papers are satisfactory and he has answered every question properly, he cannot practice law because he cannot produce satisfactory evidence that he has studied law for two years either in a law school or under the tuition of a practitioner; and until that statute is produced here and I can see what a sensible construction of it would be, I shall certainly take issue with the gentleman on that point. I think the court has power to pass only upon the examination papers of the applicant, and if the result of that examination is satisfactory, the court has no right to fix an arbitrary rule as to how long he shall have studied law.

Mr. Rosewell Page: Mr. President, I always hesitate to differ from the learned professor, and I always hesitate to disagree with any proposition looking to the requirement of the highest degree of education in our profession. Yet I believe that we had better "hasten slowly" and take up these two propositions separately.

It may not be known to some of us, and, if it is, it may not affect our vote, that even the present law under which the examinations for the Bar are held is regarded not only with great disfavor by many of our law-makers, but even with great hostility. I have heard a great and eminent law-maker, a man as influential as possibly any in the State, say that he thought the Bar Associa

tion had gone too far, and that it was a great mistake to prevent any man who was able to pass the examination from entering the profession. While I do not agree with that man, and told him so at the time and undertook to argue the point with him, he certainly represented the opinion of a great many men as to legal education.

I think it is a very proper thing that a man should have proper legal education before he is admitted. As to what Mr. Bryan says, that he should have studied law for two years and done nothing else, I am prepared to say that I do not concur. At the same time, I do not concur in the idea that a professor can always test the capacity and ability of an applicant by his ability to spell. The power to spell is a God-given power. (Laughter and applause.) I will say, though I may be accused of running him down, but he is not here, and "the absent are always wrong," I will say that one of the best, one of the most successful and upright lawyers of this Commonwealth put up on his door, to notify his host of clients, that he had gone to the "Court of Apples" he couldn't spell the word Appeals! (Laughter.) Therefore I wish to say that, while I hesitate to differ from my learned friend, whom I always like to hear speak on any proposition, and I regard him as the best man to occupy the position he does occupy in the great institution we all revere nevertheless, I think we had better vote on both these propositions separately, or adopt one or the other of them as we see fit. Probably it would be best, as has been suggested, to adopt the report and appoint a committee to confer with the Court of Appeals, to see what they will do in the matter.

Mr. N. C. Manson, of Lynchburg: Mr. President, it is very late in the session, and I move that we lay this matter on the table until our next meeting.

Adopted; on division, 31 ayes, 19 noes.

pre

Mr. John T. Harris, of Harrisonburg: Mr. President, I sume the action of the Association in laying the report on the