W. E. Walz, of Maine:

It is well that this should From a fifth to a fourth of

In my state we have found a remedy for precisely this state of affairs. The members of the Bar and the legislature have agreed that no student shall ever be admitted to the Bar unless he has studied three years either in a law office or in a law school. Our diploma does not admit to the Bar. Our students must pass an examination just as all other men who come up for admission to the Bar. be so. But we have this trouble: our students come to us from the State of Massachusetts. Now, as matters stand, they will come to our school and attend for two years, and then they will go back home to take the Bar examination in the old commonwealth. This year of the four students from our school who took and passed the examination in Massachusetts, three remained at our school for two years only, and I feel morally certain that not one of them will return to the school to finish his course.

Mark Norris, of Michigan:

In reference to the remarks made by the gentleman from St. Louis, and the remarks of the gentleman who followed him, I have a word to say in reference to our experience in Michigan. Our law requires three years of legal study. A rule of the commission defines a year as at least thirty-six weeks of full study. I mean by that full days' work as it would be practically in an office, continued for not less than thirty-six weeks in each year, before the candidate can come up for final examination. During my experience on the law commission we had, on a number of occasions, students who came to us from the university law school without having finished their course. None of them ever passed the examination given by the State Board of Examiners in Michigan during my term. It was not because they were students who had come without finishing their full university course, for they had read law in offices before and had finished three years' study. And it was not because we were prejudiced. We gave them exactly the same examination that we gave to the

other candidates, but found them weak, and they were turned back.

The objection which these gentlemen make applies, it seems to me, more to the character and quality of the examination by the State Board of Law Examiners or the standing committee than it does to any question of the diploma privilege in any law school. I think this difficulty can always be met by the commission's seeing to it that their examinations are of the right character.

The Chairman:

It may be of interest to Mr. Norris, in view of one of the statements in his paper, if I should state the result of the action taken in Pennsylvania. I think I am correct in saying that we are the only state where there is admission to the Bar based upon the suggestion which was contained in his paper, namely, that it was not a subject for legislative action. When the Pennsylvania Bar Association desired to take hold of the matter they rather felt the fact that there was in the air a certainty that any act of the legislature of the state regulating admission to the Bar would be declared unconstitutional for the reason mentioned by Mr. Norris in his paper; that they were the officers of the court, and it was part of a judicial function-both the admission of attorneys and the disbarring of attorneys-and therefore it was necessary for the Pennsylvania Bar Association to recommend to the Supreme Court the question of adopting a rule to appoint Bar examiners and to fix the standard by rules of court, and that the examiners should spring entirely not from the statute, but from the rule. That has been done, and I think on the whole has been satisfactorily done. The practical difficulty of doing it without a statute in our state, which I have no doubt would be met in other states if the same method was adopted, was that the Supreme Court can under its own theory only admit to its -own court. Therefore the rules for admission only apply for admission to the Supreme Court of the state. A student, therefore, graduating in the law department of the University

of Pennsylvania, or in any other law school, has to take the examination of the law school, the examination fixed by the Supreme Court of the state, and then an examination before the local court where he desires to practice, or the local court may, if it chooses, admit him on the Supreme Court's examination, but they may examine him a third time.

On the whole, however, the point which I wish to emphasize is that the suggestion contained in Mr. Norris's paper has worked well in Pennsylvania.

Now, may I say a word on the very interesting paper or Mr. Gilmore. It did seem to me that, irrespective of whether you should try to 'develop what Mr. Terry has emphasized, or try to create a school of iurisprudence, which perhaps rather unconsciously was the emphasis of Professor Gilmore, I think it is of vital importance to the future of legal education in this country that the university trustees and presidents realize, as Professor Gilmore and Mr. Terry both agree, that legal education is an essential part of university work, and that the university president has as much obligation and the university trustees as much duty to take a vital interest and to have the resources of the university back of the law school as back of any other department.

I do feel that I may not have entirely grasped that portion of Mr. Gilmore's paper which dealt with the subjects that should be included in a law school course. My own experience would seem to emphasize this fact: You desire, for instance, to extend your law school course so as to include as one of your electives, we will say, a course on international law. Now you already have in the university, in the college department, a course on international law, and the practical problem that comes up to the administration of the university is this: Shall we duplicate the course and give another course in the law school? Shall we adopt the course in the college, or shall we ask the college to abandon its course and follow Mr. Gilmore's suggestion and give the course on international law not only in the law school, but in the college? At the University of

Pennsylvania we have faced not exactly that problem, but substantially a similar one, and we have found from our practical experience this: You have a college faculty and they have certain ideas of how subjects should be taught. You have a law school faculty, and they have other ideas of how subjects should be taught. The experiment of having our men go over to the college and teach from the college point of view was not a success, and we have always felt that to have college professors, trained largely among undergraduates, teaching our students international law or the Roman law, would not be satisfactory to us. Therefore, I am not sure, that if the scope of legal education is to be enlarged along the lines of Mr. Gilmore's suggestion it will not be necessary to have all subjects given by members of the law school faculty. But I do not believe that this will be satisfactory to the college. Therefore you must determine the subjects which you want to give in your law school course and then give them to law students by professors who are members members of the law school faculty. The resulting duplication between some of the courses in the law school and in the college is necessary if proper educational work in the law school or in the college is to be accomplished. Lucien H. Alexander, of Pennsylvania :

Unfortunately it was not my privilege to be present and hear the papers this afternoon, but from a remark dropped by the Chairman as I came in I inferred that the question of the powers of the legislature with reference to admission to the Bar was under discussion, and, as a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association's committee to secure the establishment of our State Board of Law Examiners, I may be permitted to state that I do not think our committee was of the opinion that the legislature did not have the power to prescribe the qualifications of admission, but rather that it was unwise and in our state unnecessary to go to the legislature; that if we once allowed the legislature to feel that it had any sort of control over admission to the Bar there was no telling where it might end. I think we reached this conclusion; that the legislature, acting

under the police power of the state, has the right to prescribe educational qualifications, even the moral qualifications of men coming up for admission to the Bar, and that it is the function of the courts, acting judicially, to determine whether or not an applicant is within those qualifications. We were of opinion that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, under the Act of 1836, had jurisdiction to prescribe the qualifications, so we merely memorialized the Supreme Court, our highest appellate court, to establish a State Board of Law Examiners as an assistance in determining the qualifications. The court took this view and created the board without any specific action on the subject by the legislature.

The Chairman:

This has been a very interesting discussion and I regret that time does not permit of its longer continuance.

We have a paper which has been written by George W. Wall, Chairman of the Illinois State Bar Examiners, entitled "The State Bar Examiner and the Law Schools."

In the absence of the author, Mr. Nathan W. MacChesney, of Illinois, has kindly consented to read it. The paper was then read.

(The Paper follows these Minutes.)

Nathan William MacChesney, of Illinois:

I should like to call attention to one section of the paper in which the writer expresses the opinion that much of the poor showing of applicants for admission to the Bar at the examinations comes from reliance upon the case method of instruction and suggests, in order to remedy this defect, that a study of standard text books preceding the course, under the case method, would be advisable. The friends of the case method of instruction, who now number practically all of the legal educators as I view it, will agree with me when I say, in my opinion, the writer is mistaken. The mere study of cases has failed to a considerable extent and has shown a very great weakness as a training for active practice at the Bar. I am