Page images

standard somewhere. The opponents of this report admit that. They do not question that the doors shall not be thrown open and everybody practice law. Why? Because they recognize the principles that I have referred to. What ought the standard to be? We thought along the line of the modern educators and psychologists. I heard a very interesting address on that question the other day which was informing to me, that the modern psychologist and educators have come to the conclusion that a man is not educated effectively if he has been simply given intellectual development; that there is after all, no matter what our religious belief is, that is deeper than that, that there is a soul, a spirit, I don't care what you call it, but that there is a principle in us that must be educated along with the intellect.

How do we do that? We do it not simply by precept, but by example, by contact, by personal touch. Our children are brought up in our homes by the gentle touch of the mother. She gives them the soul that makes men and women that are worthy in the years that are to come. When a young man gets into his teens and beyond that, he measures up to certain standards. He does not get it in the public schools alone. He has got to come in contact with the right class of lawyers to understand the ethics of the profession. He has first to come in contact with educated men who have the highest standards of manhood, and women, too, if you please. He cannot get it in the rush of every day life. He ought to be segregated at least for two years under a different atmosphere in a college with other men gathered from different sections of the country, under educated professors, where proper principles are inculcated, and where the spirit of the American government is thought.

I do not quite understand the objection of those who have opposed this report. The gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Lee, his objection was in the preposition “in,” that he did not object to the standards that you should have the equivalent of a college education, with the young foreigners that he talks about.

We thought, therefore, that the young man could not get the education in any way than in a college. Now, does it shut out many of these American youths? In my town there are dozens of young men, poor boys that came up from very modest homes that have gone to the West Virginia University at Morgantown

and have taken the law course. They have to pay no tuition, and they have to pay a very moderate sum for board. Any young man that has the ambition can find a way to work himself through the law school.

According to the wonderful address that we heard from Mr. Beck this morning, if it compels a young man to work hard to get that kind of an education, it will be no disadvantage to him. I was raised on a farm, and I had to work early and late, and I say that it does not shut out any large number of worthy youths who have the mental qualifications and the fitness otherwise for the profession.

It may be that there is an influx of foreigners in the large cities who have come into the great cities and who constitute an undigested mass of men who have no conception of our constitutional government, men that it will take another generation to impregnate them with the principles of liberty and order under constitutional law as we know it-it may be that there are a lot of those men who can go into the part time law schools and by taking a list of questions which are prepared can, by a memory test stand the law examination.

Those of you who have gone to college know how you can cram for an examination and then forget all about it the next day. But does the American Bar Association want to let down the tests simply to let in uneducated foreigners? Do we propose to erect a standard simply that will accommodate these people? The next generation will develop them.

So far as I was concerned, we thought it was not an unreasonable requirement that there should be a three years' course in a college.

Now, let me say this. I have raised four boys. Two of them have gone to law school. One of them came back from law school only recently. Now, back in 1871, when I was admitted to the Bar, I wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to those young chaps. The training of the modern law school is something that is way beyond anything that I was able to get.

I have said that this was a report. These are merely recommendations, that the American Bar Association is of the opinion that every candidate for admission to the Bar should give evidence of graduation from a law school. That is all. We are

not attempting to knock out any law schools. We are simply saying what the law school ought to be. If there are law schools that cannot live in this competition, why, they ought to go out.

Of course, this cannot be worked out right away, but it is a standard to be worked out, it is a standard to work up to; that is all. It is a standard that the intelligent people of the country will have their attention called to; and ultimately the legislatures of the various states may adopt it. It furnishes to the country the idea of the American Bar Association as to what kind of training a man ought to have in order to be considered a lawyer.

The report was further discussed by Miss Emma M. Gillette, of Washington, D. C.; Alexander H. Robbins, of Missouri; Philip H. Cale, of Michigan; John E. Hannigan, of Massachusetts; N. W. MacChesney, of Illinois; J. S. Dickey, of Texas; Homer Albers, of Massachusetts; William Hutchinson, of Kansas; William C. Coryell, of Indiana and William H. Taft, of Washington, D. C.

John E. Hannigan moved to strike out the words “at least two years of study in a college” in paragraph 1-A of the resolution and insert" at least a diploma from a recognized high school or the equivalent thereof."

Homer Albers, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words “ or the equivalent thereof” and insert “or approved preparatory school.”

Edward T. Lee, of Illinois, moved as a substitute for the motion to strike out the words " at least two years of study in a college” and insert the words “a knowledge of English and American history, political and social science and ethics after the completion of a four years' high school course,” which motion was not seconded.

William L. January, of Michigan, moved to lay all pending amendments to the resolutions on the table, which motion was carried.

F. C. Eschweiler, of Wisconsin, moved to lay the matter over until the next annual meeting of the Section, which motion was lost.

Max Schoetz, of Wisconsin, inquired of the Chairman whether the faculty of a state university law school would be deemed

“public authority” within the meaning of recommendation No. 2 of the resolutions. The Chairman stated that he did not so understand unless the law of a particular state shall so provide.

The motion to adopt the resolutions recommended by the committee was then carried.

The Nominating Committee reported the following recommendations:

Chairman, Elihu. Root, of New York; Vice-Chairman, John W. Davis, of West Virginia; Secretary and Treasurer, John B. Sanborn, of Wisconsin.

Council: John A. Chambliss, of Tennessee; William Draper Lewis, of Pennsylvania.

On motion the report of the Nominating Committee was adopted and the persons named were duly elected.

The Section adjourned sine die.





A. ORGANIZATION AND MEETINGS. The Section at its meeting in St. Louis on August 25, 1920, passed the following resolution:

The chairman for the ensuing year and six other members of the Association appointed by him shall be a special committee. The committee shall report to the next annual meeting of the Section their recommendations in respect to what, if any, action can be taken by this Section or by the Association to create conditions which will tend to strengthen the character and improve the efficiency of those admitted to the practice of law.

Your committee was organized by the chairman of the Section in pursuance of this resolution, and met first in New York City on March 4, 1921. Shippen Lewis, Esq., of Philadelphia, was chosen secretary and was directed to send to persons who had given thought to matters of legal education a prescribed form of questionnaire touching upon the matters committed to our consideration.

The questionnaire was accordingly sent to the dean of every resident law school in the United States, to every committee on legal education of a state or local bar association, so far as the existence of these committees could be ascertained, to every state board of bar examiners, and to members of the bar whose names were obtained from the state vice-presidents of The American Bar Association and from other sources. The answers received were exceedingly helpful and we are grateful to those who gave time and effort in response to our request.

We met again in New York on May 19 and May 20. A number of gentlemen were invited to attend the meeting on the first day and to deliver informal addresses, followed by questions and discussion. Those who helped us in this way were: Richard D. Currier, Esq., President of the New Jersey Law School, Newark, N. J.; Charles A. Boston, Esq., Vice-Chairman of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of The American Bar Association; Thomas W. Swan, Esq., Dean of Yale University School of Law; Franklin M. Danaher, Esq., Secretary of the New York State Board of Law Examiners; Reginald Heber Smith, Esq., of the Massachusetts Bar; Charles M. Hepburn,

« PreviousContinue »