tinguished from the other in principle, and whether in the one or in the other or in all there is room for adverse criticism as to the correctness of the conclusion reached and the soundness of reasoning upon which it is based. Still another, while asking questions sufficient to direct and keep the trend of discussion in the proper channel, encourages a yet wider scope of discussions, thereby evoking the free expression of a great variety of views, some of which, it is not too much to say, even border on grotesqueness and absurdity.

All these methods have the advantage of keeping alive the interest of the students in the work and of encouraging independence of thought and free criticism. If the views uttered happen to come in conflict with those. of the court whose judgment is undergoing review, such views are not, on that account, either frowned upon or treated with levity, but are freely encouraged; for in all law schools it is understood to be the prerogative of both teacher and student to criticise the courts and excoriate their decisions whenever it is deemed necessary. One benefit accruing to the student from this, is to learn the importance and desirability of consistency in judicial decisions, and of the establishment of fixed rules and adherence to them rather than to avoid temporary hardships and inconveniences in individual cases.

But while it is true, as has been stated, that each teacher has his own peculiar way of applying the case system, there is one object which all instructors have in common, and that is the use of cases as the basis of instruction. Collateral reading is enjoined and lecturing and oral exposition by the instructor are by no means avoided, but all the investigation that has been made, and all the discussions indulged in hinge upon the question or questions decided in the case under review before the class. To illustrate:

Suppose the course is one in dam

ages.

The particular doctrine considered by the class we shall say, is that of Proximate Cause. The teacher has stated the doctrine in a general way and perhaps some cases upon it had been previously taken up and discussed. In the case now called for the student makes a brief report as to the facts and the legal conclusion at which the court has arrived. Let us say the case is that of Doe v. Roe. Roe is a farmer, who, while gathering rubbish on his land, negligently set fire to the combustible material and permitted the fire to spread, as a result of which the house of a third person, say Jones, was burned. From the house of Jones the wind blew sparks of fire to the barn of Doe, the plaintiff in the case, causing a conflagration which destroyed or injured the barn, to the plaintiff's damage. The court holds that the defendant's negligent act of setting fire to the combustible material was not the proximate cause of Doe's injury, each conflagra tion being treated as a new and independent cause. The instructor then calls for another case upon the same subject from the same or a different student. In this case it is held that the fire which consumed the last building was the result of a continuous uninterrupted succession of events due to the negligence of Roe in setting the fire and permitting it to spread; that, therefore, such negligence must be regarded as the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and that the defendant is liable. It may be that the point in the last case arose on demurrer to the declaration or plea, while in the former it was raised by a demurrer to the evidence. It is sufficient to know that the question of substantive law decided is the same in each case, and that in principle the decisions are squarely in conflict. It now becomes the function of the teacher, not so much to decide for the class which of these two cases states correctly the principle of law involved as it is to direct the discussion in such a

way as to bring each student to determine for himself which is the better decided case. In order to do this intelligently, he must, of course, have the subject well in hand, be informed as to the weight of authority, and what are the views of some of the better text writers. The student having expressed an opinion on the subject will be required to support it by such authority as he may be able to give. If he is not able to cite other cases or texts, some other student may be ready to do so, or the teacher may direct the members of the class or a portion of them, to make additional investigation and report at the next lecture.

Should the rule established by the case be peculiar to one particular jurisdiction, or only a few jurisdictions, as for example, the doctrine of mental anguish in damage suits, the class will learn that what may be regarded as good law in one jurisdiction may not be considered as such in another, upon the same subject. These are, of course, but a few isolated and, I fear, very imperfect illustrations of the working of the case system; but enough has been shown, I trust, to demonstrate its great advantage over the antiquated methods of the past, in which the student's own activity played but a very unimportant part.

Whether it will ever be adopted as a uniform means of teaching law, however, may well be doubted. In teaching procedure its exclusive use has many drawbacks, although it is employed even for this purpose by such eminent educators as Dean Ames and others of high rank-a fact which I must admit renders the expression of any doubt as to its absolute utility somewhat hazardous. One of the manifest disadvantages in the teaching of pleading and practice entirely by cases, is the length of time required to accomplish any preceptible results. An entire case covering a large number of pages may contain but a single point on the proposition under

investigation, which might have been comprehensively stated in a single sentence or at most, in a few short sentences in a textbook. It is quite true that if the cases are well edited much of the objectionable or su perfluous matter will have been eliminated; but after all, there must, in many cases, remain a large quantity of such matter which is only remotely connected with the specific principle to be taught, and much time will necessarily be wasted in its consideration.

Another subject of growing interest and importance to law schools and those engaged in the teaching of law in this country, is that of the law school student's preliminary education. The Association of American Law Schools, which is the creature and mouthpiece of the American Bar Association, has placed the requirement at graduation from a high school having a four years' course, or the equivalent of such a course. Harvard and Columbia demand of practically all their law students a collegiate course in some recognized institution. In the law schools of Yale and Pennsylvania, a considerable proportion of law students in attendance are not graduates of colleges or universities, although all are required to have the prescribed high school course, and quite a number have received more or less academic training. A somewhat careful observance of the evident efficiency and ability of the law students in the eastern law schools leads me to believe that the young man with a good high school education and two years more of college training is about as well prepared to enter upon the study of law in the law school as the one who has spent four years in college, and has received an academic degree. Of course, it may be conceded that the additional two years devoted to the study of the arts and sciences are not without their special benefit at a later period in life, as in fact, all education must be, to the lawyer. But while every lawyer's general educa

tion should be broad and liberal, it is neither just nor practicable to extend the requirement beyond the practical necessities. Richly endowed institutions can afford to set up their own standards and live up to them, but they are not necessarily the criterion for others not so favored, or who are required to rely upon public approval of the standard established by them. It is not, and perhaps never will be, the policy of the average American law school to close its doors to those who have not received a college education covering a period of four years. Public educators, it is true, should be the leaders of public opinion in matters pertaining to public education, but they must not be too far in advance of the main column if they hope to render practical service to their day and generation. What the average law school aims to accomplish is to make good practising lawyers and not jurists. Of course, it is proper enough to provide schools for the training of jurists, and the same is true as to schools for the training of statesmen and diplomats, but these are not essential for the education of men for the practical business of the lawyer. Such schools as Columbia and Harvard and others with equally high class requirements for entrance will continue to be models for the teaching of law to the great majority of the other law schools of the country; but in respect of their entrance requirements few other schools can ever hope to follow their lead. Indeed, it is by no means the unanimous verdict of the best educators of the country, that a four years' college course will prepare the student materially better for his work in the professional school than a course of say, two years, in the study of the arts and sciences judiciously arranged for him. When such men as President Hadley seriously advocate the reduction of the college course for professional men to two or three years, the

suggestions cannot be brushed aside with indifference. Judge Simeon E. Baldwin, for many years an eminent instructor in law in Yale University, and himself a university trained man and a ripe scholar, in a paper read before the American Law School Association at its meeting in August last, among other very excellent things had this to say: "The time has come when we must confess that our American university system has attempted the impossible. It has aimed at adding to the education furnished at the English university the education furnished at the German university, and at requiring both from all. The American people have been strangely patient under the strain. They are patient no longer. They are glad that those whose life is to be that of the scholar, should have these ample opportunities for culture. They are determined that those of their sons who are to live less among books and boys than among men, should begin their lifework in time to reap some of its rewards before the flush and joy of youth are past."

It is a hopeful sign for the future of our profession that the American Bar Association is exerting its great influence in behalf of more stringent requirements for admission to the practice. The wonderful progress made in this direction during the last ten or twelve years is due almost wholly to the organized effort of the American Bar. Much of needful work still remains to be done. In many States the unsatisfactory patronage of the better class of law schools is due to the indifferent requirements for admission to the bar.

That every additional year in the life of the Republic will bring new and gratifying reforms can not be doubted, in view of what has already been accomplished; but they can come only through the untiring efforts of the American lawyer who has at heart the good of his profession.

T

HE Police Court has always had a peculiar fascination for loafers. At nine o'clock in the morning you can see the corridor shark, the police court attorney, and the unfortunate client, all engaged in earnest conversation. The Police Court shyster is invariably a shabby genteel individual who knows everything but law, but he is possessed of a very loud voice, which by the illiterate and ill-informed is always considered the standard of a first-class lawyer.

The judge has ascended the bench, and the hearing of applications for warrants is in progress. His honor, with a good-natured Hibernian accent, remarks, "What is the throuble today, Officer McGrath?" "Your honor, I've arrested a man for having four wives." "Ah, let me see what we shall charge him with," remarks his honor.

"Hould, I have it. The first marriage is called in the law 'matrimony,' the second 'bigamy,' the third polygamy,' and the fourth ignominy.' We shall complain of him for ignominy. Poor fellow, I may sind to the Grand Jury a recommendation for mercy. It wasn't his fault that there were any old maids in the country."

"Officer Duffy, what can the court do for you this mornin'?" "Your honor, some boys set off fire-crackers which were tied to the tail of Paddy O'Rourke's coat." "Let me

see. This question is a perplexing one. Ah, I have it! Let me look into a book which I am told contains the law on all subjects. It is called 'Every man his own lawyer, or the practice of law made aisy.' It contains 200,000 statements of the law, and 430,000 offences against the law and their remedies. Let me look under Tinaments and Hereditaments. These boys must be complained of for malicious injury to Paddy O'Rourke's tinaments. A tinament is something that adjoins, and as his coat was adjoining his person, it is clearly a tinament according to my judgment."

"Officer Gillespie, what can the court do for you this mornin'?" "This woman, your honor, wants her husband arrested for nonsupport." "Well, madam, what did your husband do?" "He forgot to give me his pay envelope Saturday night." "But this is only Monday," remarked his honor. "It's the beginning of a bad habit," replied the woman. "Well," replied his honor in a sympathetic. tone. "perhaps your husband had a bad memory; it may be pure forgetfulness on his part." "Bad luck to him, your honor, he remembers the day he first met me, the day he proposed, the day of our wedding, my birthday, and the age of the baby when he cut his first tooth. Do you call that a bad mimory?" His honor acknowledged defeat and granted the warrant.

T

HE papers of Colonel Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State and United States Senator from Massachusetts, are preserved in the Massachusetts Historical Society, and contain a very interesting letter written, in answer to a request from him, by Dr. James McHenry of Baltimore on December 3, 1807.

Pickering had requested information about an alleged case of piracy on the Chesapeake Bay,' and McHenry tells him that at daylight on the 24th of August, the unarmed ship Othello, Glover master, bound from Liverpool to Baltimore with a cargo of dry goods, was attacked by a small schooner off Sharp's Island. A few musket balls were first fired at the Othello and, when she was within pistol shot, all the men in the schooner fired two rounds of muskets into the ship. A ball passed through the mate's hat and many lodged near the captain, when in the act of hailing the schooner. Some one on the schooner cried "Haste, haste, or I will fire again!" Glover went alongside of the schooner and asked if she were a pirate. The person appearing to command replied, "I am no pirate but a privateer from Guadaloupe," and demanded the ship's papers. Soon afterwards he declared the Othello a

Hav

'Just now, it occurred to me to enquire what had become of the French pirates who seized & were carrying off a merchant ship, in the waters of the Chesapeak, & who were committed to prison in Baltimore. ing heard nothing of them, the first thought which occurred was, that, by some means or other, they had been discharged. And I am now informed, that the District Judge, or the Circuit Court of the U. States, in Maryland, said, the laws of the U. States gave the court no cognizance of the crime; and turned the culprits over to the State Court: and that the State Court said they had no jurisdiction: and that in consequence, these atrocious villians had been set at liberty. Pray have the goodness to give me a correct state of the facts.

It is a disgrace to the Country to have no law (incredible as that may seem) by which such offenders may be brought to justice.

good prize, as having British manufactured goods on board. Men from the schooner with guns, pistols, knives, swords, etc., filled Glover's boat, demanded his keys and proceeded to the ship, leaving him on the schooner. We now quote Dr. McHenry's exact words.

"The crew were ordered below and two sentinels placed over them, the pilot was told to take the ship to sea, for which service $400 was promised, and the pilot objecting, he was ordered to do it at his peril. Then an examination of trunks, etc., in the cabin took place and provisions, porter, etc., were in great excess consumed. Captain Glover, being permitted to return to the ship about II o'clock in the forenoon, was soon ordered back to the schooner, the person appearing to have command declaring again the ship to be a good prize and should be taken to Guadaloupe. On G's requesting to remain on board his ship, the apparent commander replied he should not; but that all the hands, excepting himself, should, and that he would take care to protect his prize. Captain

Glover returned on board the schooner, where he was detained until 8 o'clock next morning. At this time, Captain Glover probably went again to his ship, which, being at anchor all night off the Potomac, wind ahead and no prospect of getting her out befor her seizure must be known and her departure prevented, the apparent commander said he was sorry to have detained Captain Glover so long, but, being positively informed on board the French ship Patriot that English property was on board the Othello, he wished to discover it; apologized for firing into the ship, saying he could not prevent his men lest they might use violence