had collected. Now, that is rather an extreme illustration, but it is an example of how delay means expense.

Is there any further discussion? If not, I will call upon the Nominating Committee for a report.

C. C. Cole, of Iowa:

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: The Committee on Nominations begs leave to report recommending the election of Roscoe Pound, of Lincoln, Nebraska, for Chairman of the Section, and Charles M. Hepburn, of Bloomington, Indiana, for Secretary.

On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the Chairman of the meeting cast the ballot of the Section for the election of the gentlemen named and they were declared duly elected.

The Chairman :

I would announce that there is an error in the printed programme, due to a mistake. On Friday afternoon at 3 o'clock we are to have an address from Mr. E. A. Gilmore and also an address from Mr. George W. Wall, besides which there will be an address by Mr. Mark Norris, of Michigan. Mr. Norris's name was inadvertently omitted from the programme. On motion, the Section adjourned until Friday, August 31, 1906, at 3 P. M.

The Chairman:

SECOND SESSION.

Friday, August 31, 1906, 3 P. M.

The Section will come to order. We have three papers to be presented this afternoon. The first is by Professor Eugene A. Gilmore, of the College Law of the University of Wisconsin, on "The Relation of the University to Professional Instruction in Law."

(The Paper follows these Minutes.)

The Chairman:

The next paper is by Mr. Mark Norris, of Michigan, on "Some Notions about Legal Education."

Seth Shepard, of the District of Columbia:

Before that paper is read I should like to make an inquiry, namely, if there is any business left unfinished or any new business that it is proposed to dispose of at this meeting?

The Chairman :

I am not aware of any new business and I do not know of any unfinished business. The usual order of procedure is to have papers read and then have them discussed before taking up new business.

Seth Shepard:

I have not been attending the sessions so as to keep informed, and I made the inquiry because this evening we are all going out, I suppose, and there will be very little time for the discussion of papers and the transaction of business.

The Chairman;

Of course, if the Session desires to do so, we can discuss this paper first, but unless there is some motion made to that effect we will proceed with the reading of the next paper.

Mark Norris, of Michigan, then read his paper. (The Paper follows these Minutes.)

The Chairman :

George W. Wall, President of the Illinois State Bar Examiners, is not present. We have his paper, but as we have already heard two papers, unless there is some objection, I shall call for discussion of the papers that we have heard before asking for Mr. Wall's paper to be read.

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut :

I simply want to say what is known to a great many, though perhaps not to all in this Section, that the American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools and this Section are all on record now and have been on record several times against admission to the Bar on diploma.

The Chairman;

Gentlemen, these papers are now before you for discussion. John H. Wigmore, of Illinois :

Being connected with at least two reputable institutions whose diplomas admit to the Bar without other examination, I am going to make this suggestion, which I have already heard made. I suggest that the members of the faculties of the state universities of this and other states form a little separate organization of their own after this meeting and organize themselves into a joint committee for a campaign before the legislatures in their respective states, going in a body to their legislatures and begging to resign the privilege of admitting their students upon diploma, which they here vote against, but of which from year to year they enjoy the benefit.

Henry M. Bates, of Michigan:

In view of Dean Wigmore's kindly suggestion to the struggling institutions here represented, it may be proper for me to say that what he says entirely meets with the approbation of the law faculty of the University of Michigan. The matter was brought up before our faculty last year when a memorial of some sort was presented by some member of the Michigan Bar to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to take the matter of admission in that state into consideration, ignoring the fact that admission to the Bar in Michigan is regulated by statute and not by the Supreme Court. At that time a copy of the memorial was sent to our faculty by the Supreme Court, and, while it was not necessary for us to take any formal vote, it was very clear that there was a decided preponderance of opinion in favor of having this so-called privilege taken away from us. An answer was made to that memorial, because certain misstatements of facts were made by the gentleman who presented it, and we thought it necessary.to deny them. I think, as a matter of fact, from a conversation that I had yesterday with Judge Moore, of our Supreme Court, in which I urged these same views upon him, that he felt that the court was without power in the premises, because of the statute

which exists in Michigan. But Dean Wigmore seems to indicate, in a spirit of jest, of course, that our action here is inconsistent with the continued existence of the statute of Michigan. We are rather powerless, however, when it comes to dealing with legislation. Speaking for myself, I am sure that I would be delighted to have that power of admitting upon diploma taken from us. And I may add that the fact that our students are admitted to the Bar of Michigan upon our diploma in no way or degree affects the scope, methods or manner of our instruction. There may have been a time when the privilege was of advantage to us, but it is not perceived that it affects us in any respect now. The great majority of our students are preparing for practice in other states, and this has been the case for many years.

Andrew A. Bruce, of North Dakota:

I have been through this battle myself. In my opinion the great trouble with the modern law school lies not with the students or with the law teachers, but with the trustees of the universities, with the university presidents and with the superintendents of public instruction in the several states. I am speaking especially of the state universities. It seems to me that a university president is rarely to be found who looks upon a legal education as an education at all. The average college president does not realize that it is an important and necessary branch of every great system of state education; that law is after all merely applied political economy, applied sociology, applied social ethics. He looks upon the law school as a bread and butter proposition, a professional school merely, and as one in which there is but little merit. Practically the only question I am ever asked at home in regard to my own school is, "How many students have you?" There is never a question as to the kind of work done, the character of the students, or the part that the law school is taking or should take in the upbuilding of the state. The superintendent of public instruction of the State of North Dakota has never once entered the doors of our school; only one of the

trustees of the university has ever entered them. When the educational associations of the state meet, when the National Educational Association of America meets, there is no contemplation of the law school problem and the law school is never mentioned. Instead of the law school being looked upon as an important part of a state educational system, as an agency which is valuable, if not absolutely necessary for the training of an intelligent citizenship in a country where the law governs and everyone is presumed to know the law, it is looked upon as a professional school merely, as a lawyer incubator.

If we renounce the privilege, if it be a privilege, of admission to the Bar upon the presentation of a law school diploma, I believe we shall make some headway in disabusing the public of the idea that the law school is merely a school for the training of practicing lawyers. When the public gives up this idea and comes to look upon the properly conducted law school as an important factor in the general scheme of education, we shall find, I believe, a hearty response to our demand for larger libraries and increased accommodations. We need first of all to educate our college presidents and trustees on the basic proposition that, in a great democracy where every man is presumed to know the law, the rules that control society and the principles on which they are founded are worthy of investigation and of study; that admission to the Bar as a practicing lawyer has nothing basically to do with graduation from, nor is the education of practicing lawyers the primary function of, the American law school.

Charles Thaddeus Terry, of New York:

I think the wisdom which selected two papers on this subject for this afternoon has been amply justified; two papers which view the law school from two entirely different, not to say inconsistent, points of view; the latter paper looking at the student with reference to his ability to pass the Bar examination and engage in the bread and butter process, and the former paper looking at him purely as a student. I think the discussion of the subject from those two points of view in the