have grouches, I know, and I want to suggest to them that it is much easier to criticise the Law Examining Board than it is to make reasonable recommendations and suggestions to enable serious men to carry out the purpose and object had in view, and in some measure help promote wholesome ideals in the great profession to which we belong.

I will tell you how I feel about this: I read a story the other day of a mother who had told her little son that he was never to engage in a fight until after he had counted twenty. He came in some time afterwards with his face all bruised and bloody, and she said, “Johnny, I thought I told you that you were never to engage in a fight until you had counted twenty?" He replied, "Mother, just see what the other boy did for me while I was counting twenty." We have been quiet about this thing. So far as I know in our section of the State there is no criticism whatever of the Law Examining Board. Lawyers tell me everywhere that our examinations are not too hard, that we should make them harder. I have invariably conversed with these young men who have stood examinations, and they have told me to the man that they did not regard them as too hard; and very often and I believe all to whom I have talked, have said, after the examination was over, "If I have not passed that examination, Judge, I have no business to practice law."

But every once in a while a young fellow fails. What then? Just to give you an illustration of how some of the dissatisfaction or criticism may come about, let me mention an instance: I heard some time ago of a gentleman criticising the Board. made some inquiry and learned that after his son had graduated at one of the law schools he had hung out his shingle, "Jones & Son." The young man took our examination and failed. course he has been "cussin'" the Board ever since.

Of

Another illustration: Out in Mr. Bullitt's country some time ago a number of attorneys wrote me about an excellent young man who had failed, a young man of excellent character, and after, as I believe, he had passed the examinations in one of the law schools. Thereupon I went and looked over this young man's examination papers and found that he lacked about twenty points of making the required standard.

Now, what are we to do? These criticisms come about from just such cases. And a man here and there has a grouch, and he comes before this Bar Association and airs it at our expense.

You talk about examining applicants on the fundamental principles of the law! We have never examined them on anything else, and do not propose to. What are these examinations about which so much complaint is made? Do we take these young men and examine them about technical subjects that no one ever thought of and that their teachers in their law schools never thought of? We do not do that.

Gentlemen say here that a great many reputable lawyers could not stand these examinations. I will answer that I do not believe that is possible, but if so there are a great many reputable lawyers in Virginia who ought to be doing something else besides practicing law. On the other hand, I dare say that you can take up the examinations that are given at the University of Virginia, at Washington and Lee University, at Richmond College, and at other law schools, and you will find questions that the young students can answer and yet that reputable lawyers cannot answer! But there is nothing in a contention of that kind. There is nothing in the world in it; it does not prove anything.

These examinations, as I say, speaking just a word further as to their general character, and I am very much obliged for the courtesy of the Association in letting me go on any further because I know that I am trespassing upon its time—

A Voice: (Interposing) No, go ahead, we want to hear all about it.

Judge Jackson: We are endeavoring to make these examinations practical. Take up any one of these examinations that we have been giving, and instead of asking, What is dower, or curtesy; define contingent remainders, vested remainders, etc.and any of these students can pass an examination of that kind— we undertake to make them practical. We give them a concrete case which calls on them to apply the principles of the law to the facts of that case, and to state what the rights of the parties are.

Do you disagree with us as to that? If so there is a fundamental difference between us.

Take the examinations given by the Court of Appeals. It has been asserted here, and great capital made of it, that only twenty-five per cent. of the students failed under the examinations given by the Court of Appeals, while we have brought the number of failures up to fifty per cent. One may see very easily how that occurred. Taking up the examinations by the Court of Appeals during the time they had the matter in hand, I will say that the judges of said court were very busy men— and, really, I take it that was the reason why they were relieved of this duty and same placed upon a special board—and for some time during the latter part of the discharge of this duty they repeated a great many questions they had asked on previous examinations. Gentlemen, we made the examinations a little bit different. We did not get away from the fundamental principles of the law, but put the matter before the applicants in a practical way, something to test their initiative. I wish every member of this Bar Association could be with us some time and see our method of conducting this business of examining students. We give them the advantage of almost everything. For instance, take one of these practical questions and if a young man shows a practical grasp of the law we grade him almost perfect and some times perfect, even though he answers the question wrong. That is the way we go at it.

Talk about diplomas from law schools! Wonderful things do we hear sometimes from these students who fail in their bar examinations as to what Dean Lile, and Professor Graves, and Professor Minor of the University of Virginia; Dean Burks and Professor Staples of Washington and Lee University, and the teachers in other law schools have taught them! Very often some of these young men show that they start off thinking they should practice law because they have one faculty slightly developed, principally memory, and very badly developed at that. Of course some of their answers plainly show they have misunderstood the law as it came to them from these eminent teachers of the law, these Deans and Professors. It would be very amusing to you to read some of the answers that we have to questions.

Why, not infrequently we have papers from students who start a sentence with a small letter! Furthermore, we have had papers which showed students to be such magnificent spellers that they could spell dog five or six different ways! What are we to do? Cannot something be left to the judgment and discretion and ideals of the men who are doing their level best in a thing of this sort?

One examination, and I believe that which inspired this attack, was the examination of June, 1912. That was not altogether a satisfactory examination to the members of the Board, and I do not think I am betraying any secrets when I say so. That examination covered, mainly, two subjects, viz: Pleading and Practice, and Real Estate. It did not cover the different subjects prescribed for applicants to be examined upon. We are very much obliged to those gentlemen who have made this report. I have attentively listened to its reading. The suggestions contained in that report, for the most part at least, have been talked over by our Board, and we have frequently stated that the matters embodied in these suggestions ought to be enacted into law.

So long as you talk about the methods adopted by this Board within the limits laid down by the statute, and follow same with suggestions as to how they may best be carried out, we welcome them and are glad to have them, but if you come suggesting a lower standard for these examinations, I say to you again, that so far as I am concerned it shall not be done!

Mr. Wm. Kinckle Allen, of Amherst: I have no grouch, I have no relatives with a grouch, I have no friends with a grouch, and I have not received a letter from anybody with a grouch. I am not going to attack the Law Examining Board because I do not think they have done anything, or been guilty of leaving undone anything that should cause them to be attacked. On the other hand, I am not going to defend the Law Examining Board, because, in the first place, I do not think they need any defense, and, in the second place, I think they are well able to look after their own interests if they needed any defense.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Bar of Virginia is under great obligation and should give a vote of thanks to the Law Examining Board for the manner in which they have conducted their examinations. I have listened with great deal of interest to the discussion that has been had, on yesterday and today, on the various questions that have arisen under this report from the committee. I have learned something from listening to the discussion.

The honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat has not spoken to the matter before the Committee of the Whole, but has seen fit to defend the Board, of which he is a worthy and able member, so I am informed-and, as I said before, I do not think that Board requires any defense.

But I do think that the sentiment of the bar of this Commonwealth is that the examinations as now given are sufficiently severe. I do think, and it is my information and judgment from what I have been able to gather here and what I have been able to gather away from here, that the bar of this State thinks these examinations should not be made any more difficult; that the standard that has been erected has been certainly sufficiently difficult.

Now the question arises, when these subjects shall have been grouped, is the Law Examining Board going to give the same number of questions, forty to fifty I believe, or is it going to give forty or fifty questions under each one of these groups? If it does the latter that will make the examinations much more difficult. When that was before the house I did not rise to my feet and make that inquiry because I thought every one was willing to leave it to the future. There will be subsequent meetings of the Bar Association, and the Bar Association can deal with that subject next year or the year following. So I repeat, I think these are questions that may be left to the future to deal with; but, at the same time, I do think there is a tendency, and I believe unconsciously perhaps, that there is a feeling entertained among certain members of the bar, that these examinations are not sufficient. I think that may be seen from the language used in the report of the committee.