« 이전계속 »
He was admitted to the bar and entered the office of a busy practitioner. A case came into the office in which the client wanted damages for the killing of a cow at a railroad crossing. The young lawyer was directed to find some cases in point. The next day he told his senior that he had hunted all day to find a case in point and could not find a single case where a cow had been killed at a railroad crossing.
I do not understand that any law school has officially indorsed any one system of instruction to the exclusion of all others, although four or five schools may be using the system exclusively. Much depends upon the personality of the individual instructor in charge of each particular course or subject. A method of instruction that one man might find adapted to his needs and personality might not do at all for another. It may not be well to adopt any one method to the exclusion of all others. The instructor should choose as the basis of his work that system which he knows himself to be most qualified to use and which he considers best adapted to the work he has in hand, and every instructor should be allowed absolute freedom of choice in his methods of teaching.
Let me read, finally, a part of the address of Baron Kentaro Kaneko, delivered at the annual meeting of the Harvard Law School Association at Cambridge on the 28th day of June, 1904.
“When I returned to Japan, after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1878, I entered the service of our Government. At that time, and for many years afterward, our country might be said to be in the era of imitation. We were then obliged to imitate the criminal code and civil code and commercial code, the organization of courts, and departmental regulations and ordinances; everywhere and in everything we must copy and imitate the laws and customs of the Western Powers. Why? Because at that time we were negotiating for abolition of the extra-territoriality treaty, and the European Powers refused to consent All the govo
unless we imitated them in our legal, political and social institutions. We had to yield to this, and imitate them. We had to imitate everything—Napoleonic Code, German Code, and Belgian Code. ernmental regulations, down to those of the collections of taxes, were copied after European models. Japan was simply in the era of imitation.
“It was in the midst of this era of imitation that I entered the service of the Government, and I worked side by side with my colleagues who had graduated from French and German universities.
“As you all know, the compilations of French and German books are very handy. If our chief asked us to look up the organization of the judicial system, the French and German scholars translated from these handy books; and, in a few hours, they had everything in a nutsnell. When a similar duty was assigned to me, I was at a loss. I had learned at Harvard Law School about equity, evidence, criminal law, and real property; but all this was of no use to me then. I I went to my 'Coke on Littleton' and my ‘Washburn on Real Property,' but I could not make any use of them. I felt so disappointed that I wished I had not gone to America, but to France or Germany instead, and had come home with this knowledge of everything in a nutshell, with a book on every subject-in fact, with a small encyclopædia upon all subjects, in which you have, after a few hours' reading, everything in perfect
a shape. I must confess that neither the common law of England, nor Anglo-American laws, assisted me in the least.
“But I was not left long in this condition of disappointment; extra-territoriality was soon abolished, and with that ended the era of imitation. No longer French or German books were needed when the era of adaptation had dawned over New Japan! Our first Parliament was then opened, and our diplomatic negotiations were conducted on a footing of equality. Then there came up subjects to be handled according to
American methods. Then I discovered for the first time the real strength and power of the education of Harvard Law School.
“When some difficult question between the different departments of Government, or some difficult question between Japanese subjects and foreigners, came before the Cabinet, with its great pile of papers and documents, the mere sight of which was appalling—then the legal training at Harvard Law School came to my rescue, and brought me not rescue merely, but power. I examined the question by reading paper after paper, just as Ex-Dean Langdell taught me to handle the case system, and when I had gone through them all, I knew just where the gist of the case lay, I knew the weakness and the strength of each party, because I had been trained at Harvard Law School to handle just such cases as these. I was never afraid to encounter any question of Government affairs, however important or difficult, and when I had finished reading the case, it was so clear in my mind that I could instantly write out my opinion just as I used to write the headnotes of a case at the Law School.
“Then I was glad that I did not go to France or Germany, but came to America, to have my legal training at Cambridge.
“Thus you see that in our era of imitation, the Harvard Law School education was of no use, but when we came to the era of adaptation, that is, of discrimi. nating between good and bad in foreign institutions, and adapting the best to our own institutions, then the training of Harvard Law School was the most useful that one could have.
"This is my own confession; and not mine only. Baron Komura, our Foreign Minister, and Mr. Kurino, our late Minister at St. Petersburg—both your fellow alumni of Harvard Law School-would say the same, if they were here today. These two men, just before the outbreak of the present war with Russia had to deal with the most difficult and delicate questions, but
so skilful was their action that not a mistake was made by them in any point of international law, or any violation, however slight, of its customs and etiquette; and our Government Report of the correspondence between our representative at St. Petersburg and our Foreign Minister in Tokio, beginning July 28, 1903, and extending to February 6, 1904, is really a living monument of the case system of Harvard Law School, applied to our international affairs.'
JAMES M. JOHNSON, KANSAS CITY, MO.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Not long ago it was my very good fortune to listen to your Governor, whose fame as an after-dinner speaker extends from Sea to Sea, speak to the subject of, “There's Nothing the Matter with Kansas." Theme and speaker appeared to be perfectly suited to each other and it goes without saying that the speaker quickly convinced his audience, if any needed conviction, that no room exists for finding fault with this State and its wonderful people. Naturally the Governor was not content with the exoneration of the State from any sort of adverse criticism but followed up his advantage by drawing such a picture of the marvelous beauty of the land, its amazing natural advantages and resources and of the intellectual and moral grandeur of its people who have ever marched in the forefront of human progress, that the audience convinced and delighted, caught his inspiration, and at the conclusion of his address arose and deafened the ear with applause, and the speaker who followed him in a burst of admiration exclaimed, that he was now willing to accept anything as true that might be said in praise of Kansas or her people. He would even believe, if the Governor said it, the assertion that Kansas possessed the finest sea coast and best fisheries of any state in the Union.
My own acquaintance with the State, which extends over a period of some years, told me that the Governor's portrayal was in no wise overdrawn or exagger