I can

two papers was such as to make us pause, and certainly such as to give us great food for reflection. In my own case, not let it pass without saying a word.

I differ entirely from the last speaker when he says that a legal education is only part and parcel of general education. He changed his statement in the latter part of his remarks, and with the change I agree, when he said that legal education was as much a part of general educational institutions as any other. If we ever get to the point when we concede, as my friend who read the first paper said that some do concede, that a law school is, technically speaking, only a school of jurisprudence, we shall have destroyed, to a very large extent, the efficiency of what we now call law schools.

He suggested, I mean the reader of the first paper, that, to his mind, the division between that part of a student's career which is devoted to acquiring what might broadly be called culture, and that part which is devoted to gaining that which might be called education, is based on a misconception; that any division into strict periods of time, as between what we have designated culture on the one hand and education on the other, might very properly be said to be an erroneous division.

Now, it occurs to me that perhaps the error on that question. lies in dividing the course or the career of the student into any time periods at all as regards education and culture getting. If a man gets education while he is getting knowledge or culture, whichever you choose to call it, he cannot get the knowl edge or culture themselves in any degree worth while. From the moment that he begins to learn, he should, nay he must, begin to be educated; in other words, the moment he begins to get knowledge or culture, whichever you choose to call it, he should begin to be educated; and I mean here by "educated" learning to think, that is, learning to think consecutively and logically.

It is an expression which we frequently hear in the case of a surgeon performing an operation, that the operation was successful, but the patient died. That brings me to the second

point of the first paper which I wanted to refer to, which was the suggestion of the speaker that perhaps it was wrong, educationally speaking, for a law school to have upon its faculty or in its corps of instructors men who had been in practice or are in practice at the time when they are also instructing. I think the reverse is the fact, and I think so because legal instruction involves not only education, the implanting in a man's mind of the ability to think two thoughts consecutively, but also knowledge. There are two rails which must carry a car. That is where legal education, being an applied science, differs from a great many sciences. On the one hand, learning the alphabet is getting pure knowledge; it does not involve any logical faculty, any ability to reason, but it is vital. Then you have pure logic, which does not involve anything practical at all. If a man is going to deal with the affairs of life, whether as a lawyer or in almost any other capacity, he must have the reasoning faculty; therefore, he must have exercised his mind in dialectics, he must know logic.

Now, those two things are united, I think, in the clearest possible way in what we call legal instruction; and, unless a man gains both of those things, he does not become a good lawyer. A man who has been in active practice in the forum, whether he is there at the time he is instructing or has been there before, is, it seems to me, in the best possible position, assuming that he has the other requisites of a law teacher, to inspire students to learn the things which they want to know and to exercise the reasoning faculties which they wish to develop. And I say this in spite of the conspicuous examples of eminent law teachers who have never had any actual experience in practice. There are exceptions, you know, which prove the rule. I think the truth lies in the other direction, and certainly it is a matter of almost everybody's experience that the law student takes more notice, has more enjoyment in his course, if he can see through the illustrations, through the suggestions of the instructor, something of the actual forum in which he is going to apply his knowledge.

And now to go back. An instructor may be never so skilful in the analysis and synthesis of principle, may be never so learned in legal principle, never so versed in dialectics and conscientious in using all those things in his instruction, and yet fail to touch the particular man or the particular set of men whose minds he is trying to mold. I saw upon the outside of a magazine the other day this title of an article, "Does Education Hit the Mark?" I did not read the article and I do not care what was in it, but it suggested this idea. We are apt to think of shooting at a mark as it is done by our riflemen with guns resting upon something and the mark at a distance staked up in the ground; but that is not the kind of way that a law instructor shoots, and that is not the kind of mark that he has to hit. The kind of mark which the law instructor is aiming at is more like a flock of birds, some flying more swiftly than others, some dodging this painful operation of thinking, and some dropping from their own weight, which always prevents their being hit. That is the most difficult mark in the world to shoot at.

And the point that I am coming to is that, perhaps more with law instruction than with any other kind of instruction, the instructor must be a man who is able, because of his experience and his knowledge of human nature, because of his contact with other men, and thereby getting to know men and to know men's minds, to understand the mental capacities and the varying mental operations of the students with whom he has to deal. That is the whole point after all; because he cannot reach them, they being a flock of birds of different characteristics, of different methods and speeds in flying, unless he gets, pretty early in his course, to know them well, to know the particular turns of them, and then to think out and work out his course of instruction in such a way that sooner or later he can hit or touch them all.

Then, if you are talking about legal ethics, as was done in one of the papers, surely the man who has had some knowledge of actual practice is better able to tell a class how to apply,

what was called the other day in the address of the President, "private self-control," to the practice of law.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that there is danger in some of our universities that the law school may be made too integral a part of what is called general education; that there is danger in some of the schools that it may become too purely a school of jurisprudence, and that would be lamentable. We must never forget that law is an applied science and not a pure science. William W. Keysor, of Missouri:

I for one rather deplore the depreciation of the law school diploma manifested by the remarks made here today. I represent a law school that for a long time enjoyed the privilege of having its graduates admitted to the Bar without further examination. It gave up that privilege because it was enjoyed by other schools whose graduates did not seem to have the necessary qualifications. Now all candidates for admission to the Bar are examined by a commission, and we have this result: Our two-year men attend these Bar examinations, and so far none of them has failed to be admitted. It is true that they have not studied some subjects very much, but they cram on some text book for a week or two, and they pass. I said to one young man, "You are coming back to the law school to finish your course, I suppose?" He replied: "Well, I don't know." I said: I said: "You do not think this Bar examination means that you are qualified to practice law, do you?" "Well," he replied, "I should think so. This Bar examination has been established by the law of the state; these examiners have been appointed by the Supreme Court, the highest tribunal in the state; I have passed the examination, and by their certificate they assure me that I am qualified to practice, and I think that is as good an authority as any law school faculty can give." Now, that is the proposition. We are having it over and over again. The large majority of young men study law with the expectation of finally practicing, and the majority of those who practice do it as a means of livelihood; and when they are admitted to the Bar after a state Bar exam

ination they feel that they are qualified at least to begin to do business. And they are fortified in that, if you please, by the remarks of some lawyer, such as the remark of a lawyer in St. Louis that I heard of the other day who said, "Why, there is nothing in all this technical training of the law school. When I want to know what a proposition is I look up the digest and tell a clerk to bring me the cases. I don't have to go all through this reading to know what the law is."

I do think that while it is just and right that all who are admitted to the Bar shall be subjected to the same, or at least to a sufficient test, yet I do think that we ought not to depreciate our own diplomas any more than we can possibly help. Mr. Gilmore has told us that legal education should be scientific; that it should be given in established colleges, and that the men who give the instruction should be teachers trained especially for that business. But he did not tell us where they should be trained. Now, suppose a young man goes to one of these colleges and puts in three years under these special teachers who do nothing else but teach law, and he gets his diploma, and you say to him that he may as well throw it away; that it is of no use for admission to the Bar, but that he must go and take an examination before a Bar commission, which will give him an examination prescribed, not for one of his ability, but for the average law student of the state. In other words, I believe the tendency is that a Bar commission will depreciate the character of the examinations in order to meet the demand of the Bar and of the young men throughout the state who want to be admitted, and who have not taken these three years under trained instructors. While I thoroughly agree-and the school that I represent worked with great assiduity to get the law passed by the legislature taking away from our school the right to have our graduates admitted on diploma-yet I cannot but feel that we ought not to be compelled to say to our students that our diplomas in themselves are not of much value to them.