men in Massachusetts stating that they know about the man and recommend his admission. We see the man himself and talk with him. It is surprising how many men go from the states in which they were admitted to the Bar into other states and seek admission. There was a man who was disbarred in New Hampshire that came to Massachusetts and applied to be admitted, and we found out the facts about him and of course did not admit him.

We come now to Proposition VI, which reads as follows:

"VI. There is no necessity for the insertion in the rules of a reciprocal comity provision; that is, of a proviso prohibiting the admission of lawyers from other states on grounds of comity, unless the state from which the lawyer comes extends similar courtesies to lawyers from the Bar of the state in which the candidate is applying for admission."

In some jurisdictions, I think in the Province of Quebec, they refused to admit an applicant coming from one of the states. I move the approval of this Section.

The motion was seconded and carried.

Hollis R. Bailey:

The committee apparently had some difficulty with propositions VII and VIII, in regard to the registration of students, and did not come to any final conclusion. Therefore, I will pass those, and come to proposition IX, which is a separate matter. That was discussed the other day. Dean Lewis says that is required in Pennsylvania. I think that if we are going to have registration it would be desirable to have proof at that time. The proposition reads as follows: "Proof of Moral Character Shall be Required as a Prerequisite to Registration."

I move the approval of that rule.

The motion was seconded and carried.

Hollis R. Bailey:

Nos. X and XI are still awaiting the approval of the committee. Numbers XIV and XVI have been approved heretofore. No. XIV reads as follows:

"From the examination fees received the members of the State Board shall receive such compensation as the highest appellate court of the state may from time to time by order direct."

That, I take it, is the ordinary rule; and I move its approval.

John B. Sanborn, of Wisconsin:

Do I understand that that implies compensation in addition to fees? In Wisconsin where fees are charged they are required to be paid into the state treasury, and all compensation is paid out of the state funds and not out of any specific fund.

Hollis R. Bailey :

In Massachusetts it was provided that there be only the fee received by the clerk and turned over to the state treasuerer, and that out of that should be paid the examiners, and the board of law examiners have their pay out of that compensation.

John B. Sanborn:

I have always doubted the wisdom of including a purely administrative feature like this in a uniform law.

Hollis R. Bailey:

These rules are intended to be suggestive rather than mandatory.

Mr. Chambliss:

While I am not opposed to this rule I am heartily in accord with what Mr. Sanborn says. I think we ought to get rid of everything in these rules that is not essential to the purpose which we have in view.

Now, I will move to strike out the first five words in this paragraph, namely, "From the examination fees received," and let the next word begin the sentence.

The motion was seconded.

The Chairman:

Are there any remarks upon this motion? If not, all in favor of it will say aye; opposed, no. The motion is carried, and those words are stricken out.

George C. Manly:

I think this entire rule ought to be recommitted to the committee. I move that it be recommitted.

The motion to recommit was seconded and carried.

Mr. Bailey:

Now I come to No. XIV, which has been approved by the committee, and which is as follows:

"The state board shall consist of five members of the Bar, no one of whom shall receive student candidates in his office in preparation to call to the Bar, or be connected with the faculty or governing body of any law school presenting candidates for admission."

I think that is a good rule. In New York they have such a rule, and I move the approval of it.

The motion was seconded and carried.

Hollis R. Bailey:

Now I will go to proposition XII, which gives a list of subjects for examination.

The committee has amended that somewhat. I have a letter from Mr. Wigmore, stating that he agrees with the recommendations of the committee, excepting this: "I oppose any specification of subjects because experience shows it cramps the development of the school curriculum and misleads students to give artificial weight to some subjects. Moreover, it is needless."

I move that the form presented by the committee be approved. This list is suggestive rather than mandatory.

Secretary Hepburn:

It seems to me that this proposition XII has in it a good deal of meat, and would afford an excellent opportunity for a conference in the Section next year. I believe the committee has done exceedingly well with the matter, and about all that any committee could do, but my feeling is that this proposition, and perhaps others as well, should be sent to a conference next year when we could discuss these particular propositions upon which there is a difference of view and a broadening of horizon. Therefore, I move that proposition XII with such other propositions as we may decide to include in the list be referred to a conference in this Section next year.

The motion was seconded.

Hollis R. Bailey:

Do you mean a conference to cover the whole matter of standard rules?

Secretary Hepburn:

My motion is that the propositions which we do not adopt here today had better go to a conference. I do not see why we should send them back to the committee.

Hollis R. Bailey:

That will leave for further consideration the matters covered in propositions VII and VIII as to the desirability of the registration of students as they now have it in some states, and it will leave the matter contained in proposition XI about the period of study, whether it shall be three years or four years, or three years in a law school and one year in an office, a matter which is certainly important and interesting, and will leave proposition XV, which was a suggestion as to the fee for admission or for the filing of the petition. So that you will see that there is a substantial amount left for discussion another year. Somebody may think of something else which is important to go into the standard rules, which, as I understand it, when finally approved, may be reported to the Committee on Legal Education of the American Bar Association which committee will bring them before the American Bar Association for adoption.

I make no objection to Mr. Hepburn's motion, because I think the remaining work can just as well be done in the Section itself as in a committee. I suppose that the motion will include a discharge of the committee.

Secretary Hepburn:

The committee have done excellent work; they have reached a result, and I think a great deal will be gained if upon these matters that we cannot dispose of this afternoon we can confer as in Committee of the Whole next year and then send the entire matter to the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar of the American Bar Association.

George C. Manly:

I very much wish that we could bring this matter to a conclusion so that we could go before the legislatures of the different states with some constructive proposition. This matter of raising the standards of legal education and of admission to the Bar

depends very much upon the legislatures of the different states. What we need now worse than anything else is that some states which have maintained a low standard for admission to the Bar shall be brought up to the standard proposed by these rules. We have a number of such law schools where the standard is very high. There are a number of them which require a college degree for admission to the law school. A great many-in fact, a majority of the American Law Schools have now come to the three year course. Many of them are requiring at least two years of college work as a standard for admission. Yet throughout the South there are some law schools which are on a two year basis.

Now it seems to me that we shall make no great progress along this general line until we get before the legislatures with these standard rules and have them adopted.

Therefore, I say we ought to try to arrange things at this meeting so that if we bring this matter into a conference at our next year's gathering we shall have such a conference on a day prior to the meeting of the American Bar Association. That will give us an opportunity to bring the matter before the American Bar Association and get it on record, and then we can commence this work of reformation. Because unless we have the authority of the legislatures to fix higher standards we are not going to make any great progress. Colorado is a new state, and a state of not very large population. Our two law schools, while they are rivals, have worked in harmony for a high standard. We have seen in the last two years in Denver the formation of a night law school. One would suppose that two law schools were enough for a state having the population that Colorado has. The night law school is a school without any high standard. It is useless for Dean Fleming and myself to attempt to raise our standards in our schools when a man with the commercial idea, a man who has no conception of high standards at all, can slip into a night school in Denver and get the minimum of requirements under our present statutes. Our statutory requirements are higher than those of many Western states, and our State Board of Examiners gives a real examination; yet we want the help of a more rigid statutory requirement. It is useless for the law schools of the East and of the Middle West to keep on raising their standards when the