would seem to me that the induction is hardly sufficient for a safe conclusion. If a similar study could be made throughout a considerable number of law schools, more might be learned. Even then there would remain the question how the same high school students would have done had they had the benefit of a college course. Further, it would seem that there would be safer results if the comparison should be made between equal numbers of students of the two groups in question, previously selected because ascertained to be man for man of practically equal natural ability. This it is at once admitted would not be an easy process. Perhaps it is not impossible.

After all, gentlemen, we know that education does not make the lawyer. All in the world that our schools can do is to give the young man an opportunity, and then what he does with it is for himself to determine. If these considerations are sound, Mr. Chairman, it would leave in the field of training young men to be lawyers three groups of schools: Those schools which should seek to prepare as many young men as possible to pass the bar examinations; and that is easy enough, of course, in the wisdom or lack of it in the basis of such examinations. At the other end would be the university law school, having university ideals, and aiming to train the minimum number of highly trained young men in the hope that they will on the whole be of the largest value, and in the further hope that some of them will be of the greatest possible value to society and to their profession; and there might also be a third group, intermediate, adapted to train students who have not had more than a high school education. I can easily see that schools might be doing a useful work in that way.

HENRY WADE RODGERS, Dean University Law School, in opening the discussion which followed the reading of the papers, said in part:

The question which is under discussion seems to me to be, of all the important questions with which this Association is concerned, perhaps the most important for us to take under advisement. If we fix the standard which we exact too low, and permit men to enter the law schools at an immature age, and before, by the discipline of their minds, they are ready to take up the study of law, we do them a serious injustice, we do the profession a serious injustice, and we do the commonwealth a serious injustice. On the other hand, if we exact a higher standard than the situation warrants, we do an injustice to the young man and to the commonwealth. So the question is a fundamental one. Our work begins at the point where the standard is fixed. We shall do it well or ill, as we fix that standard right.

It is curious that this question, which today suggested itself to our minds as a fundamental question, is of such recent origin. When I entered the law school and when I was admitted to the bar-and I am not yet venerable-neither the law school nor the examining committee concerned themselves about this matter. The oldest law school in the United States exacted no examination of the men who applied for admission to its classes until some time in the 70's. To-day there are still law schools which admit to their classes any person who applies for admission. I have in my mind at this moment one of the oldest law schools in the United States, founded in 1847, which advertises in the newspapers that it admits students without any examination. But we may congratulate ourselves that the number of schools which admit without examination is very few.

Indeed, they are discredited with the profession. There is another group of law schools which, while they do demand an examination, are satisfied with a common school education. A man may learn arithmetic, English grammar, English composition, history, and geography, and if he knows those subjects he is qualified to study law. We may again congratulate ourselves that that is a constantly diminishing group. Then we have a third group which requires a high school education. That is a constantly increasing group. And I take it that even among the members of this Association you would find advocates who will assert that a high school education is sufficient for admission to the law schools of this country and that it affords adequate preparation for admission to the bar. That was originally the view of the American Bar Association. More recently another advance step has been taken. The Committee on Legal Education in 1907 in its report advised the American Bar Association to take an advance step by passing a resolution expressing its conviction that it was desirable that at least two years of a college course should be required for admission to the schools and for admission to the legal profession. Now, it is my conviction that in taking that step the American Bar Association has gone just as far as it is going to go in that direction during my lifetime or yours. I may be mistaken. Some of the law schools have responded to that action of the American Bar Association. Yale and the University of Wisconsin have established the requirement of two years of college course. The University of Washington on the Pacific slope three years ago passed a rule which requires students entering this fall to have had at least one year of college work. The University of Illinois and the University of Iowa have taken the same step. The University of Indiana has recently adopted a rule which provides that, beginning next fall, one year of college work shall be required of applicants for admission

to the school, and that the fall thereafter two years of college work shall be required. The University of Minnesota, the University of Nebraska, and Cornell have recently adopted the one-year rule, I suppose as a preliminary to taking the other step of requiring two years of college work as a condition of admission. The faculty of the University of Michigan has advised its Board of Regents that that rule will be adopted there. And I understand that similar action has been taken by the Law School of St. Louis.

Among those who discussed the subject-matter of Prof. Wigmore's and Pres. Judson's addresses were Henry M. Bates, of the University Michigan Law School, Francis M. Burdick, of the Columbia University Law School, Harry S. Richards, of the University of Wisconsin Law School, Wm. R. Vance, of the George Washington Law School, James Parker Hall, of the University of Chicago Law School, John R. Rood, of the Michigan University Law School, John C. Townes, of the University of Texas Law School, and Evan H. Hopkins, of the Western Reserve University Law School.

Francis M. Burdick, of Columbia University, made a motion, which was carried, to the effect that each school represented in the Association be requested to prepare, before the next meeting, a summary of the statistics of the scholarship of its students during the past ten years, showing the difference between the grades of students who entered with and without a college education, and showing a classification, in all cases, as to the ages of the students; also, that a committee of three be appointed to devise and circulate a uniform table for the purpose of exhibiting these statistics and to collate them and report at the next meeting.

Simeon E. Baldwin, of Connecticut, thought it would be very desirable if the aid of the public authorities of the United States could be enlisted in this matter, and it occurred to him that, as

next year the government is to make its census, a request from the Association to the Director of the Bureau would meet with a favorable response. He therefore offered the following resolution, which was adopted:

Resolved, that the Director of the Census of the United States be respectfully requested to incorporate in the census of 1910 statistics as to the following points:

(1) The number and age of those applying in 1910 for admission to the bar of the courts of the several states and territorial possessions and the District of Columbia.

(2) The number of such applicants admitted to said bars.

(3) The number of each of said classes having a collegiate degree.

(4) The number of each of said classes having a law school degree.

(5) The number of each of said classes having had a four-year high school education.

(6) The number of each of said classes having had a partial education at a law school.

William R. Vance, Dean of the George Washington University Law School, moved that a committee of three be appointed to present this matter to the Director of the Census, with power to decide upon a satisfactory form or blank for the purpose. This motion was carried.

Mr. Vance, as the Secretary of the Association, then read the recommendations from the report of the Executive Committee, which were as follows:

(1) The Committee renews the recommendation made by the Executive Committee, in its report for the year 1908, that article 6, section 2, of the Articles of Association be amended so that it shall read as follows:

"It shall require of its candidates for any legal degree study of law during a period of at least three years of thirty weeks each, with an average of at least ten hours required class-room work each week; provided, however, that candidates attending night classes only shall be required to study law during a period of not less than four years of thirty weeks each, with an average of at least eight hours of required class-room work each week."

(2) It is recommended that the following resolution be adopted by the Association:

"Whereas, it appears that the summer examinations for admission to the bar are held

in many of the states before the usual date for the close of the scholastic year in the principal law schools of the country, thereby causing great delay and inconvenience to graduates of such law schools; be it therefore

"Resolved, that the Association of American Law Schools respectfully requests of the bar examiners of the several states that the dates for the summer examinations be fixed at such times as will permit them to be taken by members of the senior classes in the law schools."

(3) The application for membership in this Association made by the Law School of Vanderbilt University has been carefully considered. It appears that, with the beginning of the session 1909-10, this school will fully comply with all the requirements of this Association. It is, therefore, recommended that it be admitted to membership in the Association.

Also the following supplementary report:

Pursuant to call, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Association of American Law Schools was held at the Hotel Pontchartrain at 8 o'clock on the evening of August 23d, there being present Dean Charles Noble Gregory, President, and Messrs. Bates, Costigan, and Vance. Applications for admission to the Association, received from the Law Schools of Tulane University of Louisiana, the University of the state of Washington, and Epworth University of Oklahoma, were laid before the committee.

These applications having been duly considered, the following recommendations were made:

(1) That the Law Schools of the Tulane University of Louisiana and of the University of Washington be admitted into the Association.

(2) That with the assent of representatives from the Law School of Epworth University consideration of the application of that law school be postponed.

At the request of the Law School of Vanderbilt University, it is recommended that further consideration of the application of that school for admission to the Association shall be postponed.

A letter of resignation was presented from the Law School of the University of Maine. It was recommended that this resignation be accepted with regret.

The recommendations of the Committee were adopted, each recommendation having been considered separately.

The following report was made by Ernest G. Lorenzen, of the George

Washington University Law School, Chairman of the Committee on Pre-Legal Studies.

Your committee appointed to suggest a program of university courses for students preparing for the study of law, recommends: (1) That students devoting only two years to such work take

English (Rhetoric and Composition), 2 years.

Latin or Greek, 2 years.

German or French, 2 years.

Mathematics, or a Natural or Physical Science, 1 year.

History, including English and American Constitutional History, 2 years.

Experimental Psychology.

(2) That students devoting three or four years to such preparation take in addition to the above courses in Economics, Political Science, Sociology, and other courses in History, Philosophy, and in the natural or physical sciences.

In making the above recommendations, your committee has been guided by the thought that the principal aim of the first two years should be to give to the student a thorough mental training. The informational side of courses, however useful, should be subordinated at this time to the primary object of teaching the student to think and to work. A few subjects thoroughly taught are of far greater value than a superficial knowledge of many. Bearing this principle in mind, the choice of courses will in the end depend largely upon the character of the student and upon that of the teacher. In the absence of particular considerations, the subjects recommended for the two-year course are, in the opinion of your committee, best calculated under existing conditions to give the desired results.

Courses in Economics, Political Science, and Sociology are strongly recommended, because of their helpfulness to a thorough understanding of the law. It is believed, however that their study should be in the main postponed until the third or fourth year of the prospective law student's curriculum.

On motion the report was adopted.

On recommendation of the Committee on Nomination of Officers, Hon. John C. Townes, Dean of the University of Texas Law School, was elected President, and Wm. R. Vance, Dean of the George Washington Law School, was elected Secretary, of the Association for the ensuing year.

There being no further business, the Association adjourned.

F

ROM the moment a client submits

his case to an attorney until the merits of the controversy are finally adjudicated in the court of last resort, the advocate is confronted by problems, the solution of which can be determined only by resorting to law books-to the textbooks, encyclopædias, digests, and reports which are the tools of the legal profession. No man can know all of the law. In the preparation of the case for trial, in the trial itself, in the submission of the cause to the appellate tribunal for review, questions arise the answers to which must be sought for in the books. The results of the investigation must be arranged in logical order and embodied in a document, the purpose of which is to present those results to the court in the best and most forceful manner. This document is known as the "Brief."

Though in nearly every case he tries, the lawyer needs a brief, so that a large portion of his work is brief making in one form or another, comparatively few of the younger members of the profession know how to gather the material, or how to combine and present that material to the court in a satisfactory manner. Any person who will take the trouble to study the numerous decisions, criticising the manner in which the cases have been submitted for adjudication, or who will examine the decisions in which appeals have been dismissed or the judgment of

the lower court affirmed because of fatal defects in the briefs, cannot fail to be convinced of the great need of instruction in the art of brief making. Lawyers, judges, and law teachers unite in the opinion that such instruction is not only a desirable, but a necessary, part of a lawyer's education.

Notwithstanding the importance of the subject, with a very few exceptions law schools have, for good reasons, been unable to give any systematic or effective instructions in this branch of legal education. The young lawyer has had to learn by long and sad experience how to use the tools of his profession, how to dig out the material necessary to the proper presentation of his client's case to the court, and how to use that material to the best advantage. With each succeeding year and the corresponding increase of material in the form of decisions and statutes, the lawyer's problem has become more and more difficult.

To obviate some of the difficulties of the student and lawyer, to enable him to find and select from the mass of material the particular pieces he wishes to use in building up his brief, a practical study of brief making should be made a part of every lawyer's legal training. The object of the instruction should be to give the student and young lawyer a practical working knowledge of the use of a law library and the preparation of briefs.

The art of brief making naturally divides itself into three branches: (a) The finding of authorities, requiring intimate acquaintance with and practical knowledge of the proper methods of finding the law quickly and accurately; (b) the study of the cases, requiring training and experience in reading, analyzing, criticising, and comparing the decisions for the purpose of determining the doctrine of the case; (c) the framing of the brief itself, requiring readiness and skill in stating the facts, and in formulating and arranging in methodical, logical, and effective style the specification of errors and the points or propositions of law desired to be established, together with the arguments and authorities on which the advocate relies to establish those propositions.

Underlying the first requisite in the proper making of a brief is a knowledge of the sources of information-of the repositories of the law in which the brief maker must delve for his material. Consequently instruction in the art of brief making should cover four subjects, distinct in themselves, but closely related and co-ordinated in practice: (1) Where to find the law; (2) how to find the law; (3) how to value and weigh the decisions; (4) how to prepare the brief.

Such a course should cover the following subjects:

A general description of all the various repositories of the law, such as constitutions, statutes, decisions; the various series of reports, text-books, encyclopædias, digests, and other books designed to aid the lawyer in finding the law.

A full explanation of the various methods of using the books described for the purpose of finding the authorities.

A study of the methods of determining the weight and value of a decision as an authority, rules for determining the doctrine of a decision, and general rules

for the interpretation of decisions and statutes.

The determination of the theory of the case and an explanation of the purpose and method of preparing the preliminary or trial brief.

An explanation of the purpose and requisites of the brief on appeal, with suggestions as to its proper preparation.

Instruction might well be based upon a series of monographs by wellknown teachers and authors, supplemented by a series of lectures giving a more detailed explanation of the various subjects treated in the monographs. As each subject is completed, the student should be expected to answer a number of questions based upon the text and lectures. These questions must be framed so as to bring out, not merely his theoretical knowledge of the subject, but also the practical application of such knowledge. That is to say, they should consist largely of practical problems, for the proper solution of which the student must apply the rules and methods explained in the lessons. At the close of the course the student should be required to make a brief on appeal in a hypothetical case. pothetical case. He should be expected to determine the points of law involved, to make a thorough search for the authorities, and to prepare the brief. This practical exercise should call for an application of all the principles and methods explained in the monographs and lectures.

Such a course as is outlined above, if conscientiously pursued, would give the student and young practitioner a thorough working knowledge of the use of books-the tools of his profession-and enable him to brief his cases both for trial and on appeal in such a manner that their form and contents would gain for him the admiration of the court and the respect of his opponent.