페이지 이미지

standard should be regarded as the irreducible minimum. No effort should be spared to bring up to it those states whose requirements are now too low, and at the same time the leaders in legal education should be urged further to advance the standard of general education for those who in the last analysis more largely than any others make the laws and administer justice between man and man.

The history of humanity shows the race advancing through slow stages from the savage to the civilized, from the stone age to the age of steel, from brutish ignorance to what we fondly call enlightenment. As we view this advance, the only conclusion we can draw is that the race is indefinitely, if not infinitely, perfectible. Modern civilization is but the result of the aggregated efforts of this perfectible race, and no conclusion is possible save that as the race advances civilization and its multitudinous activities and interests will follow with equal step.

This development, following the law of evolution, will be from the "simple and homogeneous to the complex and heterogeneous."

If we compare the Code of Hamurabi, the earliest of the written codes within our knowledge, with the legislation of the ages since down to the mass of modern codes and decisions, the correctness of this rule of evolution in its application to law will be established. There is constantly increasing complexity. The Patriarch, judging between his children at the tent door, needed no trained interpreter of codes and decisions to apply the rules of justice to the simple facts of life as he knew it. Today not only must the judge be a lawyer, but he must have the assistance of other lawyers trained not only in law, but in all the multitudinous learning of civilization. Today the lawyer and the court may have to deal with a case of surgical malpractice, demanding a knowledge of anatomy and surgery, tomorrow the case may be one of iron-making with its chemistry, ores, fluxes, temperatures and relative proportions of materials which go to produce that common sight, pig

iron. The next day we may have to deal with questions of toxicology, the effect of poisons on animal tissues, the forma tion of ptomaines and other developments of the most abstruse science. A patent case may next engage attention, involving mechanics, chemistry or the history of an art or science as old as the human race.

The reason of the law as it is dwells in the facts of history and is hidden in the shadows of the past. The lawyer must draw that reason forth or ofttimes fail in his endeavor to assist the court.

Mercantile law is based on the manners and customs of bygone ages. Maritime law finds its sources in the history of commerce and the development of sea power. Most of our modern statutes can be fairly interpreted only by the light of a knowledge of the history of the society which gave them their birth. But a little while and many of us may be called to argue before a new court the question of what is a reasonable rate for the carriage of freight or passengers. The special knowledge which will be required intelligently to present such a question needs no elaboration. And beyond these things the lawyer in the trial of cases must match wits with opposing counsel, witnesses hostile and friendly, with jurors and even with the court. If he knows the laws of the operation of the human mind, the better able he will be to draw the truth from the mazes in which self interest oft seeks to hide it.

As civilization develops, such problems will surely become more vast, more intricate, more far-reaching in their effects on human society. If the lawyers are not ready to meet these increasingly complex problems as they arise, they will lose their rank as leaders of human progress.

The idealist, uninformed in the facts of evolution, asserts that future civilizations will be without lawyers. Unfortunately for such predictions human nature was created with the "Ego," the great I, and so long as human selfishness continues so long will greed and the love of self seek its advantage at the expense of the neighbor, so long will some try to rob, if not

by force then by the more subtle fraud. So long as the only way to prevent such wrongs is by resistance, so long will there be cases to be tried. So long as truth itself cannot be seen by all from the same aspect, so long will there be differences of opinion as to the application of truth. So long as the human mind remains unable to comprehend all truth, so long will there be disputes about truth. And so long there will continue to exist, under some name, trained intelligences whose function it will be to search out and apply the truth between man and


If, then, the profession of the law is a necessity to human progress, if its aims be to lay strong and firm the foundations of that progress with the stones of justice, and if it must meet and answer the increasing demands of the increasing complexity of human development, it follows that, if it is to preserve its rank among the leaders of human progress, it must continually strive well and worthily to answer the demands upon it. This answer it cannot make by adopting a standard as sufficient for all time or even for a single generation. The evolution of humanity forbids it. The stern mandate "grow or die" commands us onward. Only the wide outlook of the liberally educated man can fully meet the situation. The desirability, nay, the necessity of continual progress, seems scarcely open for discussion. The only fairly debatable question is one of policy and power.

How far can and ought to be our next step? Shall it be ability to pass a sophomore's or a junior's class examination or shall it be a college degree? What shall be the nature of the examinations as to general and legal education, and how shall they be conducted?

In considering these questions, it should be borne in mind that the public generally has no opposition to the liberal education of lawyers; it has no desire for a lower or stationary standard of legal education. On the contrary, it feels itself better served and reposes a greater confidence in the learned. Our profession, therefore, can make and enforce its own

standard. If we are agreed, we will find little opposition. The machinery for the accomplishment of this advance, is to a large extent at least, already in existence and capable of being placed in operation as soon as the Bar of a given state desires.

An attorney is an officer of the court. The jurisdiction to admit and disbar should therefore be vested in the court whose officer he is. Such is now the law in many states. It should be made so in all. The highest court in each state should be vested with power to admit and disbar according to its own rules. That there may be a standard, the inferior courts should have no power of examination and admission nor should the legislature have jurisdiction of the subject. The general nature of the standards to be applied should be fixed by rule and the examination of candidates placed in the hands of a standing committee appointed by the court. By such an organization, the views of the Bar of the state would easily be impressed on court and committee, and the raising of standards from time to time as demanded be in the hands of those ready to respond to the reasonable demands of the public and the profession. Placing examination and recommendation in the hands of a standing committee necessarily excludes all idea of admission by diploma. This practice is objectionable because it sets up two standards, one that of the school, the other that of the committee. It matters not which has the higher standard; in either case there is inequality. Particularly should admission by diploma be abolished where the school having such a privilege is conducted for pecuniary profit. In that case there is constant temptation to advertise the privilege as a means of drawing students and an equal motive for lowering the standard of work. Also at none of the modern law schools is there that careful inquiry into the personal character of the applicant which should always precede his examination.

The history of my own state will afford a good example of how the diploma idea works. Prior to 1863 Bar examinations were in the hands of the courts, both Circuit and Supreme Courts having power to admit after examination in open court.

In 1863 the diploma of the Law School of the University of Michigan was made conclusive evidence of sufficient legal learning and character to entitle to admission. In 1881 this provision was repealed and the law school graduates required to pass the usual examinations. From 1881 to 1895 the examinations in our Supreme Court were fairly exacting. Those in the Circuit Courts more often than not were insufficient and often they were farcical. The writer has seen two hundred graduates of the University Law School asked one question apiece and admitted whether the question was correctly answered or not. In 1895 the present Board of Law Examiners was created and the diploma privilege granted to the University Law School. In 1897 a member of the faculty of a law school conducted for pecuniary profit was a member of the legislature. In that year the diploma privilege was extended to that school. Today in Michigan we have two schools whose diploma will admit anyone to the Bar without examination as to character or general or legal education. In fact, as our law says such holders "shall be admitted," it is not perceived why an attorney who has been disbarred or a person of notoriously evil life may not find entrance by passing through these schools.

I do not wish to pose as an opponent of law schools. On the contrary, I am a graduate of one, and several years of service on our State Board of Law Examiners, as well as my experience at the Bar, have fully satisfied me that the best place for the law student is at the law school. The records of our state board and my own observation have satisfied me of the superiority of the law school training over that of the office. No student who can go to the law school should dream of study in an office save as a desirable supplement to the broader training of the school. The Board of Examiners in Michigan has always been composed of careful, painstaking men wishing for the advancement of the administration of justice. Its examinations have been fully up to the standard of those held by similar commissions. But notwithstanding all this, its efforts

« 이전계속 »