Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

been, and continues to be, to advance the standards of legal education throughout this country in order that those who come to the Bar in the United States may be well educated men, who have secured a thorough training in legal science. The Association already has accomplished much in this direction, and what it has done to promote the cause of sound legal learning has been often mentioned both in this country and in Europe, as being among the best of its achievements.

In view of the past history of the Association and of its record in matters which pertain to the cause of legal education the committee feels assured that it is amply justified in bringing before you the question of the desirability of a uniform law respecting law degrees. Uniform laws respecting negotiable instruments, -sales, warehouse receipts, stock certificates, partnerships and the like are not the only uniform laws which should interest this Association.

In the report submitted in 1907 the committee stated that "in its opinion a distinct and very particular service can be rendered to the cause of legal education in the United States by securing the enactment in the several states of a uniform law regulating the right to confer law degrees." (Proceedings A. B. A., 1907, p. 574.)

The committee, in its report submitted in 1906, took a similar position. (Proceedings A. B. A., 1906, pp. 487, 490.)

The further consideration of this subject has only served to strengthen the opinion which was expressed in 1906 and in 1907. During the year the committee has addressed the deans of the various law schools in the United States with the view of ascertaining whether they favor or oppose a uniform law.

The deans of but twelve schools, a very small minority, announced themselves as opposed to the movement. They were the deans of the following schools:

[blocks in formation]

The dean of the Law School of the University of Chicago, in answer to the question whether he was opposed, wrote: "Yes, for the present, except such as would prohibit 'fake' schools and perhaps correspondence schools from conferring degrees." He is, therefore, not included in the above list, as hè favors some legislation on the subject.

The reasons for opposition, so far as they have been assigned, seem to be:

1. That the question is a local one.

The dean of the Law School of the University of Virginia wrote: "The question seems to me to be a local one, depending on local conditions. We have no need for legal regulation on this subject in Virginia."

2. That degrees are not of sufficient importance to justify an attempt to secure uniform legislation concerning them.

The dean of the Law School of Trinity College wrote: "I do not think degrees of sufficient importance to justify an attempt at uniform legislation." In this opinion the dean of the law school of the National University also shares. He wrote: "The triviality of this subject is unworthy of serious attention . . . . The widest possible diffusion of legal knowledge is desirable. Any step in the direction of establishing an educational hierarchy should be discouraged. . . . The three or four real American universities need no protection . . . . Degrees should be abolished along with other meaningless titles. . . . The proposed legislation is vicious, trivial, un-American, an entering wedge for unavowed purposes and responsive to no demand by the profession of the law upon the profession of pedagogics."

3. That it is impracticable to secure it.

The dean of the Law School of the Leland-Stanford University wrote: "We are not in favor of an attempt to secure uniform legislation on this subject, for the reason that we believe it impracticable."

4. That each institution should be its own judge to determine the conditions under which it will award degrees.

The dean of the Law School of the University of Maryland wrote: "Let each university regulate its degrees as it deems best."

The dean of the Law School of the University of Georgia wrote: "There are two law schools in this state, having each a one-year course, and conferring the degree of Bachelor of Law. The University adopted the two-years' course in the year 1901. It is not the policy of the University to advocate any measure looking to the curtailment of the rights of other schools. The action of the University sufficiently defines her position as to her own duty and responsibility."

The dean of the Columbia University Law School did not state his reasons, but said he was opposed to legislation.

The dean of the Law School of the Catholic University of America is in favor of uniformity in the matter of law degrees, but he thinks it should be secured by agreement between the universities and not by legislation.

The dean of the Harvard Law School thinks an attempt to secure uniformity by legislation will prove futile and he does not believe that the American Bar Association should concern itself with the matter.

The argument in favor of a uniform law was set forth at length in the reports of 1906 and 1907. The committee does not deem it necessary to go over the ground again in the present report. It is content to reaffirm its conviction of the desirability of a uniform law, and to state that the reasons set forth in the two previous reports seem to it amply sufficient to justify the conclusion which was reached on this subject.

That conclusion, so far as the committee is concerned, has not been shaken by a consideration of any of the objections which have been made by those who view the matter in a different light. While not deeming it necessary to re-state the affirmative argument in favor of a uniform law, it seems proper to consider briefly the objections which have been suggested.

The committee dissents from the view that the conditions under which law degrees are to be conferred should be determined by local considerations. An applicant for admission to the Bar should know the law, and that without reference to whether he is going to practice in one section of the country or another. This

Association, in recommending the law schools to establish a threeyears' course, made its recommendation general, and not to the law schools of a particular section. And when it recommended that the schools should require applicants for admission to have at least a high school education, its recommendation was again general and not sectional. If a man who has not had a high school education, or its equivalent, is not qualified to study law, his disqualification is the same, whether he lives in one part of the country or some other.

The conditions may be satisfactory in Pennsylvania, in Massachusetts or in New York, or, as Dean Lisle says, in Virginia, without further legislation, but if they are unsatisfactory in other states it would seem that the local situation should yield out of consideration for the general welfare.

President Schurman, of Cornell University, wrote the committee: "From a national point of view it may be advisable to secure a uniform law to regulate the confirming of law degrees in the several states. In New York State, however, we do not feel keenly the need of such legislation, as the Regents of the University of New York State protect us against serious abuses and constantly legislate in the direction of uniformity."

This Association has determined that three years ought to be the length of a law school course, and most of the law schools throughout the country are now three-year schools. The committee submits that the Association is not prepared to admit that the question is local, and that if a school happens to be in Georgia or in Tennessee its course should be one year and its graduates should be granted an LL. B. degree, and that if the school happens to be in Virginia its course should be two years with an LL. B. degree.

The committee dissents also from the opinion that degrees are not of sufficient importance to justify an attempt to secure uniformity of legislation concerning them.

The right to confer degrees is derived from the law. If degrees are of sufficient importance to make necessary such authorization, it is difficult to see why they are not sufficiently

important to justify uniformity in the authorization as proposed by the committee. In Europe degrees are considered of sufficient importance to justify legislation, prescribing the conditions under which they are conferred. In some countries the result is obtained by investing the minister of education with authority to fix standards, and in others, as in Scotland, by direct legislation. The want of such authority and the lack of uniformity in this country has caused American degrees to be discredited throughout the world.

In stating his objection that degrees are not of sufficient importance to justify uniformity of legislation, the dean of the Law School of Trinity College, North Carolina, adds: "If degrees are given they should be given only to those learned in the law." Precisely so. But the lack of any legislation makes it certain that degrees will be given to persons who are not learned in the law, and it invites the evil. A condition which makes it possible for any institution to give the degree of LL. B. to those who study law for one year, as a few institutions are doing, certainly affords no protection against the degree being granted to large numbers of persons who are not "learned in the law." It may be granted that under a law which restricts the conferring of a degree to those who have studied for three years the degree may still be obtained by persons not "learned in the law." Under such a law, however, the danger of the degree being unworthily granted would be greatly diminished. To admit that it is wrong to grant degrees to the unlearned, and at the same time object to any law which aims to correct the evil, seems to the committee a wholly untenable position.

In this connection the Association is reminded that it is already on record in favor of strict state supervision of the degree-conferring power. (See Proceedings for 1898, pp. 27-31.) That being the case, the question which is left for the Association to consider is whether it is not desirable that the supervision should be exercised by a uniform law. The committee does not consider it necessary to argue further the desirability of supervision and legislation, as it deems that question closed by the attitude previously taken.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »