Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: The next section is——

"IX. That the rules of the Examining Board be amended so as to require applicants to produce a certificate of the court of the county or corporation wherein they reside, certifying upon its own knowledge or upon evidence satisfactory to it that the candidate is of good moral character; such certificate to be given by the court only after ten days notice published in a newspaper of such corporation, or in case the applicant resides in a county after such notice posted at the front door of the courthouse thereof, setting forth the nature of the application and the day upon which the application will be made."

Prof. C. M. Chicester: I will ask, what is the object of the provision as to publication?

Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: The object is to give an opportunity to anybody in the community who has any objection to offer with reference to the applicant's moral character.

Mr. Bullitt. Is not that section in conflict with the preceding section which provides that two professors may sign a certificate?

Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: No. There are two certificates required of applicants. One certificate is to be signed by two practitioners, upon which certificate the court now grants its certificate of good moral character. This refers to the certificate to be given by the court.

Mr. Preston W. Campbell, of Abingdon: Suppose this section were adopted, and, under its provisions, objection were made to the granting by the court of a certificate of good moral character, what notice will the applicant have that objection is to be made? There is no provision, so far as I see, to cover that feature; the applicant has no hearing.

Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: Let the court continue the hearing if there is any need for it.

Prof. C. M. Chichester: In the meantime the applicant loses his chance to take the examination at that time.

Mr. J. F. Bullitt: Do non-resident students have to get that certificate?

Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: Yes.

Mr. Allan D. Jones: What effect does that have on men from other States? The professors see them in their classes and give them certificates, but they will not know their standing where they actually reside. I can see where that provision would be effective as to residents of Virginia-advertisement in the county or city wherein they reside-but cannot see that it would be of any particular benefit with reference to applications of men from other States, because their residence is assumed to be at Charlottesville in the case of University of Virginia students, and at Lexington in the case of Washington and Lee students, and at Richmond in the case of Richmond College students, and, quite naturally, they would demean themselves properly at the place where attending school so as to be able to get the required endorsement. But publication would have no effect in their case, and would put them to needless expense.

Prof. Raleigh C. Minor: That might be true of students from other States, but it would not be true of the great body of residents of this State and who expect to practice in this State.

Mr. R. E. Byrd: My objection to that section is, in the first place, that it is an unnecessary thing to do; and, in that connection, I want to ask, why should we make a distinction between the man who wants to practice law and the man who wants to practice medicine or anything else? The idea of burdening young men with an advertisement which brings their characters in issue before the whole community so that if they have any ene

mies or illwishers they may come and tell the court the applicants are not proper men for whom to certify good moral character! I think you may well rely upon the court to know whether a man residing in his circuit is the right sort of man to practice law or not. I think it is humiliating to have such a requirement! It would be humiliating to us if one of our sons should have to publish a card in the paper inviting the public to say whether he is a man of good moral character or not. I am utterly opposed to it, not only for the morale of the thing but also because of the expense and likelihood of having to miss an examination should some captious objection be made. I move to strike from that section the portion about advertising.

Judge W. J. Henson, of Roanoke: I second the motion. I think after the certificate is given by two professors or two practitioners that that is enough. There may be isolated instances where a man gets through when he ought not to have been permitted to do so, but such cases are so few in number that I cannot see any necessity to have such a requirement.

The Chairman: What portion is it desired shall be stricken out?

Mr. Byrd: The portion about advertising in a newspaper in case of a resident of a city, or posting at front door of the courthouse in the case of a resident of a county.

Mr. Volney E. Howard, of Lynchburg: I offer as a substitute for Mr. Byrd's motion that the entire section be stricken out and the rules of the Examining Board remain on that point as they now are.

Judge R. C. Jackson, of Roanoke: We all agree that in admitting men to the bar two things are to be considered: First, the character of the applicant; and, secondly, knowledge of the law or ability. And, furthermore, we all, I presume, agree that the former is more important than the latter. Most bar in the State of Virginia suffer more from lack of character in some of

their members than from lack of ability, and I think that there is great carelessness on the part of members of the bar in this respect-as to the character of the men who apply for admission. I think if a great many of those gentlemen who are knocking the Board of Examiners about their examinations, and, in a great many respects misrepresenting the Board so far as I can see, would themselves use some care on the very threshold of these examinations, they would confer a great favor, not only on the Law Examining Board but on the administration of the law throughout the State of Virginia. At present an application is required to be signed by two practitioners, and then that application goes before the court, with no particular notice to any one before it is acted on by the court. Frequently, especially in the cities and larger towns, the court knows nothing about the character of the man who applies for a certificate of character. Futhermore, it is a fact that some members of the bar will recommend almost any man who requests them to sign his application. I repeat, there is a great deal of carelessness in that respect. Time and again my attention has been called to the fact that a man has come before our Board to be examined, and even passed the examination, who was not fit to practice law anywhere! You have men of that sort in almost every section, and not one or two but more perhaps in the most of our cities and larger

towns.

Now, gentlemen, something ought to be done in that respect! I think in the cities, where we have Bar Associations, that it would be well to have a committee appointed whose duty it would be to inquire into the character and previous conduct of men who apply to stand the bar examination! Or something of that sort should be done. I do not know just how it can be managed in the counties or rural districts, but care here is needed! With reference to this section, I believe all that is required is that notice shall be given in a newspaper ten days prior to the time when the application will be acted on. I would say that that does not impose any unreasonable burden on any young man. I want to say, when we are working here to number within the ranks of our profession men who have some idea of professional ethics and some regard for the traditions of our

profession, that we ought not to get at loggerheads in this way, and say that small things of this sort are a burden. It seems to me a great deal being said on this subject is of that character. I want to say while I am speaking here, with due deference to those gentlemen who are criticising the Examining Board, that we have never intended anything else except to carry out the original purpose of the Legislature in the creation and organization of this Board.

I think that something at least ought to be deferred to the men on this Board. Who are they? Who have been the men composing this Board? We have had Mr. Frank T. Glasgow, of Lexington; Mr. Wm. B. McIlwaine, of the city of Petersburg; Mr. Thos. R. Keith of Fairfax; Mr. Ro. M. Hughes of the city of Norfolk; Mr. William Leigh, of the city of Danville; and Mr. Aubrey G. Weaver, of Front Royal. Better lawyers or better men cannot be found in the State of Virginia than these men!

I also want to say to the gentlemen of this Bar Association that from the start we have never had any idea except to hold up the standard in the law examinations we have given.

I want to say another thing, that there are men here in this Association who want to break down or tear down the standard as we have fixed it; and that I, for one, do not propose for one moment to yield!

The Chairman: The chair advises the gentleman that his time is up.

(On motion, seconded by several members, the speaker was granted additional time.)

Judge Jackson: Just a word or two more. What is the character of the criticisms we are having here? I am glad one speaker made the admission that we are human beings. Another gentleman gets upon the floor and says that it is admitted that a great many reputable lawyers now at the bar in the State of Virginia. could not pass the examinations that have been given by the Examining Board. Who admits it? What is there to back up talk of that kind? There are various people in this State who