I may say that we have learned by this inquiry, as we have learned heretofore by publications of the lists in the newspapers, of objections to different applicants that come before us; and hardly an examination goes by that we do not receive objections to the moral character of some of the applicants. When we receive such objections, though it may be anonymously, or it may come from some member of the Bar or from some individual who has a grievance, or from whatever source it comes, we undertake to make an investigation. We have sometimes devoted five or six entire days to the hearing of testimony and arguments as to the moral character of applicants. The charges of misconduct which are brought up are extraordinarily varied. I remember that we had one applicant who was very deaf, and we had another applicant who was practicing law before he was admitted to the Bar, and another applicant against whom the charge was made that he had procured an abortion upon a client. All I will say is that enough was adduced to sustain the charges and we refused the applicants admission to the Bar. Another case was that of a young man who was an anarchist in the country from which he came. After he had been here few years it seems that he testified in a tort case in New York in favor of a fellow countryman who had been injured, testifying that he was present at the time of the accident and saw her suffering, when, as matter of fact, he was not there at all but was in the State of Pennsylvania, and it developed that he had been promised the sum of $250 if she got a verdict. It came out in our investigation that these were the facts, and he admitted that he knew now that it was not a proper thing for him to do, and he went before the Grand Jury and testified to the truth. Finally, after he had secured somewhat of an education, he settled in Boston; he went through the law school, and after he had gotten his degree some people in New York learned of it and they made known the facts about him. His case was brought to the attention of the Bar Examiners and the question brought up whether or not he was a suitable man to be admitted to the Bar. He was allowed to take the examination, and he passed very well. Then we made a further investigation and discovered this perjury of his some six or seven years before, which possibly may have been condoned, and we found that he had testified falsely in New York, and we further found

that he had falsified to us in his examination before us and we refused him admission. The week before I came away from home he was before the court to have his case reconsidered, and I suppose when I go back the matter will be up for further consideration.

I might state that in one case we had an applicant who came to us very early in the study of the law and said, "I have served a term in state prison," and he told us what the charge was upon which he had been convicted. Yet the board were unanimously of the opinion that, under the circumstances and in view of the fact that he had lived an upright honest life for a certain length of time after serving his sentence, he was recommended and is now practising law. One of the judges of the court told me that he thought we did wisely in considering that this young man had lived down the offense. It was a breach of trust for which he had been convicted and served his time, and the people who had been injured, as well as other people in the community where he lived, felt that he had reinstated himself and they were ready to trust him again.

I am not yet convinced whether the New York method of having a separate board to pass upon the moral character of candidates for admission to the Bar is the best one to adopt or not. Perhaps it is. The Board of Bar Examiners in Massachusetts gets some information, of course, by seeing the men as they come before them and examining their papers, which is valuable to one passing upon the matter. There is one thing which they do in New York that our court is beginning to think is of importance: namely, that some one, either the Board of Bar Examiners or a special committee, should personally interview if not every applicant, all those who may seem to require it in order to make sure that they can speak fluently the English language. Indeed, in Massachusetts, at the present time, we have some men who have been admitted to practice who are unable to speak English with any degree of fluency. A written examination does not disclose very much as to whether they have a good command of English or not.

It seems desirable that whatever test is applied it should be uniform as to every applicant. The only reason why hitherto we have failed to call the candidates before us for a personal examination is the expense involved. These young men come to us from

different parts of the state and they have to pay their own expenses, of course, and, if they have to come for a second examination, it will largely increase their expenses. However, that is perhaps not so important; and, whether it will be applied to every applicant in the future, or not, I cannot say. If a man is a graduate of a university we assume that he can speak English fluently. Of course, we don't know, and we don't accept so readily, that his moral character is all right. College graduates sometimes seem to do things which are unprofessional just as readily as other men who have not had the benefit of a college course. Oftentimes I suppose it is because of the necessity of keeping the breath of life in them that these men do unprofessional things. I have a letter in my pocket now from a man asking whether we will do anything to have a certain man disbarred. I do not suppose that the committee on admission to the Bar, or this committee on moral character of candidates in New York, meddles with the matter of disbarment; but the idea is of importance and I think we should all act with some uniformity in regard to it.

Walter George Smith, of Pennsylvania:

In endeavoring to maintain the highest standard of the profession we are confronted in the United States by different conditions at the outset. I suppose that those who represent the court as members of examining committees and those who represent voluntary legal associations as members of committees of censors in New York, in Boston, and in Philadelphia, have different forms of procedure. We have in the Eastern cities representatives of the most ancient race of which we have knowledge coming up to be admitted to the practice of the law. They are people gifted with a marvelous intellectual ability and great power of concentration, who exercise extreme self-denial in overcoming their environment of poverty. Frequently it has been my lot to see men of that character who were surprised when informed that they have done anything wrong. As was pointed out by Mr. Carson in his address, and by other speakers before the Section last year, those men who come to the Bar without the incalculable advantage of having been brought up in the American family life, can hardly be taught the ethics of the profession as adequately as we would desire. It is a frequent subject of remark and is a truism among

us who practice in the larger cities-especially among men whose practice extends more than twenty years back-that there has come a change in the tone of the profession, a lowering of the standards and a commercializing. How this situation is to be corrected in New York the paper to which we have listened suggests to a certain extent. It does seem very drastic to put a man literally on trial to prove that he is an honest man before he is admitted to the Bar. I do not think that course would be accepted in many of the Western communities, but I believe that it is the best thought of disinterested men in the East on the subject. To a man who has anything approaching noble ideals of the profession this is astounding. I often think when these matters come up for discussion how, before Mr. Lincoln had obtained anything like the great political prominence that came to him a few years later, in delivering an address upon the subject of the attitude of the public mind towards the lawyer, he made reference to the same fact to which our friend from North Dakota has referred, that the lawyer's honesty was the subject of popular jest. He pointed out the obvious fact that almost every man had at some time or other in his career, something to do with a lawyer, and that it is not possible that the great proportion of lawyers are not men of integrity or affairs could not be carried on as successfully as they are. All the rules that we may pass will never do away with the necessity of considering eventually what is known as the personal equation.

Observing the proceedings of this body during the last few years, I think it is grappling now with the most important problem to which it can give its attention. It seems to me that the intellectual standard has been placed as high as possible in most communities. Men must be taught to appreciate the fact when coming to the Bar that they are becoming members of a profession which exacts from them the strictest standards of honor.

Henry H. Wilson, of Nebraska:

There is one thought which, in my opinion, this paper has not brought out. That is whether the test of moral character should be made at the beginning of the law course or at the end of it. A number of the states are now giving legal education gratuitously to all who come asking for it. Our neighboring state of Missouri

does that. In other states, where the schools of law are not under state supervision, very few of them are self supporting. Where the state is giving its support to legal education, in whole or in part, it may well be inquired whether this gratuity should be granted until it is ascertained whether the character of a candidate for admission to the Bar is such that ultimately he ought to be admitted to practice law. This raises the question whether the examination or test as to his moral character ought not to come at the beginning rather than at the end of his course of legal study.

In my state we have tried to carry along the same standard in the state examination, after study in a law office, that the university has adopted with respect of its candidates for admission to the Bar after a course of study. We therefore require that not only shall a young man read law for three years in some reputable law office, but that he shall, when he commences his reading, register as a candidate for the Bar.

Now, it occurs to me that outside of the ordinary Bar examination as to acquirements in a law office there might well be a separate board to examine into the qualifications of the young man morally.

I think that a general aw should require every candidate for the Bar to register when he begins his technical reading of law, and that such registration shall not be complete until he produces to the court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter a certificate after a thorough examination as to his moral character. I do not mean that the law schools do not incidentally teach morality or that a law office does not teach morality. On the contrary, one of the most broadening, inspiring and ennobling experiences that a young man can ever have is to read some of the masterpieces of the law. You will find no higher morals, no keener sense of justice, no finer expresions of honor, than in those masterpieces; and I can imagine a young fellow who might be of rather loose notions as to morality at the commencement of his course who, at the end, would have a much finer grasp upon moral principles. But primarily the law school is not established for that purpose. Therefore, it seems to me that no student should be allowed to matriculate in a law school unless there has been a preliminary inquiry into his moral character. It is something