cation and the Association of American Law Schools seems to be a proper time for it."

(The Paper follows these Minutes.)

The Chairman:

The papers that have been presented are now open for discussion. I suppose we shall be able to proceed more satisfactorily if we take up for discussion now the first paper. The circular which has been distributed suggests that some members have undertaken to lead the discussion on certain subjects, but that must not be considered as a limitation upon the discussion by anybody. I understand that Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Curtis are not here. Their names were down on this circular as intending to say something on the subject of legal history. I observe that Dean Rogers's name appears for the discussion on the question of the uniformity of law degrees, and we should be glad to hear from him now.

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:

I had supposed that it would be the wish of the Section to dispose of the first part of Mr. Abbott's paper before we came to this subject.

The Chairman:

The first part of his paper was on comity among law schools. Mr. Ashley and Mr. Bates were to say something on that subject. I understand Mr. Ashley is not here, but Mr. Bates is here, and the Chair will call upon him to speak on the subject. Henry M. Bates, of Michigan:

The discussions in Mr. Abbott's paper have taken a somewhat different direction from that I had anticipated, and consequently I find that in my slight degree of preparedness, for I confess it is such, I am somewhat embarrassed. It occurred to me before this paper was read that, as a prerequisite to any realization of its proposals, with which, I wish to say at the outset, I feel myself for the most part heartily in sympathy, there must be not only some approximation towards uniformity in methods and in standards among the members of this Association, but perhaps by reason of that

a cordial respect for each other and a confidence in each other's motives, and, in the main, in the results accomplished by each of us. I may be mistaken, but several things have come under my observation which, together with a reading of the proceedings of prior meetings of this body, have led me to believe that possibly upon some occasions and in respect to certain methods that spirit of mutual confidence and good will has been lacking. Whether this be attributable to what many think an irrational college spirit or an esprit de corps evidenced by different institutions, I do not know. I think all must admit, however, that there are indications that the vociferous undergraduate rivalry sometimes becomes so strenuous that we forget that it has really no bearing on educational problems; and if that college spirit, which certainly has its good points, is on the whole justified as connected with college affairs, it certainly cannot be, it seems to me, with reference to law school affairs. Of course, a prompt reply would be that such differences as exist are differences of opinion, and that even if they have tended sometimes towards asperity, they are not due in any large measure to those rivalries which I have referred to, but result entirely from differences as to methods and standards. It is on that topic that I wish to address the few remarks that I have to make.

At the time I received my appointment to the faculty which I now represent some announcement was made of the fact in the city where I lived, and a few days thereafter I met a very good friend of mine at the club where we had been accustomed to lunch together, a man engaged in practice in that city and connected with one of the law schools, and he congratulated me in a friendly way upon the work I was about to undertake, and then remarked in a somewhat jocular way, "You know that my institution has it in for Michigan. I expressed my surprise at the statement, and I interrogated him as to the reason, and I found that in his case it was based wholly upon his vague notions as to our methods. I asked him what the methods were that he objected to. Well, he did not know

exactly what the methods in vogue in Michigan were; and, as anything I might have said at that time would have been speaking ex cathedra, I did not follow the matter up, but after spending a year or two teaching in the Michigan Law School I met my friend again, and then I found, upon renewing the discussion with him, that the methods in his school and those in the Michigan Law School were really very much alike; we had the same courses and pursued in the main almost precisely the same methods. I have recently sent for the catalogues of nearly all of the leading law schools of the country and have made a somewhat careful study of them for the purpose of ascertaining the scope of instruction, the methods pursued and the standards of work required; and, in view of my earlier belief that there was a hopeless dissimilarity as to methods, I was rather surprised to learn that there had been a marked approximation towards similarity of methods and requirements. So that it seemed to me then that the divergencies, with reference at least to the prominent law schools, and, possibly, I may say without offense, those which are connected with universities and have university traditions to uphold, are not, after all, radical as to methods. It is my experience that teachers of law generally are very ready, for example, to acknowledge the powerful influence which those who believe in the case system, and I confess myself one of them, have had upon legal education. The fact is that the principle which they insist upon has been adopted to some extent at least in almost every prominent law school in this country, though in many schools, of course, the case system is used in connection with some other methods. So that an examination of these catalogues showed me that in nearly every school some attention is given to the study of cases, and in most of them a great deal of attention. And the scope of instruction differs much less than I had supposed, and the number of courses in the leading schools and the topics covered are not so widely variant. So it is as to standard. Of course there is a group

of schools which have been able to require the academic degree

Others have not been fortunate

as a prerequisite to entrance. enough to feel that the attitude of their constituencies, state or otherwise, would justify or permit such requirement, or that, under existing conditions, it would even be right for them to admit only college graduates. But one has only to look back ten or fifteen years and observe the raising of standards all around to become convinced that the time is not far distant when most of us can and will require, as a prerequisite to admission to the law school, some academic work beyond that given in the high schools. I mention this because it seems to me, if I am right in thinking that there has been some approximation and that we are possessed of one ultimate purpose, that we are not as far apart as we have sometimes supposed, and, therefore, that we are in a better position to attempt to realize the plan which Mr Abbott has presented so interestingly this morning, and I have little doubt that, with our AngloSaxon way of getting at things, in the course of time such methods as he has proposed and suggested can be arranged. Indeed, I am quite sure that his own experience in another school this summer has suggested to him something of what may be done. I have had some experience myself in teaching at our summer session this year, and one of the most interesting men I met there was a graduate of the Tulane Law School; now an instructor there. He had come to us to get a glimpse of the common law, and the part, suggested by his special. training in the civil law, which he contributed to our discussions was as valuable, I am sure, as that of any man in the room. I felt that we had gained by the presence of that man among us. He was willing to come there as a student, although he was well equipped to be an instructor anywhere, I think, and he did, in fact, instruct us there. I also had in the same class a man from an Eastern law school who was filling in his time, and we all felt that he added much to our class-room work, and he was good enough on leaving to say that his time had not been altogether wasted. When one thinks, for example, of the courses given in Tulane under the Roman codes and the

civil law, is it not possible that this interchange of students and of faculty may become immensely practicable and not unusual in the not distant future? We must cultivate the spirit of good will. I think Mr. Abbott's suggestions are founded on a scientifically proven theory, if I may use that expression. No individual, no organization can live within and upon itself exclusively and attain the best results, and I cannot doubt that an interchange of students, professors and library facilities, such as he has suggested, would tend to increase the efficiency of our law school work.

If a dean has been willing to confess to a paper with a "double aspect," possibly I may be pardoned if I say just a word on another topic suggested by some remarks of Dean Hall. That relates to the elective system. It may be interesting to Mr. Hall to know that in Michigan, where we have for years had a group of electives, some of which are pursued in a cursory way because they relate to specialties in a particular field, like the law of irrigation for example, we have by recent faculty action made up a group of eight elective studies taken from the heretofore required work of the regular course, a certain number of which, however, must be chosen by the student. The ever-expanding field of law has made us feel that we must do that in order to do justice to those courses which we offer.

The Chairman:

We shall be very glad to hear from any other gentleman present on the subject of comity among the law schools.

If no one wishes to discuss that subject further, suppose we take up the particular branch of comity which is suggested by co-operation in producing text books for law schools. I see that our friend, Judge Ingersoll, is expected to say something on that subject.

Henry II. Ingersoll, of Tennessee:

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I had supposed that, as I came at the end of the list, before my time to speak came the