It thus appears, so far as the opinion of the schools is reflected by the opinion of the deans, that the general sentiment not only favors a uniform law, but the uniform law proposed by the committee. The dean of the Law School of the University of Colorado states that he approves the act, but can see no excuse for authorizing either the degree of L. B. or that of J. D., and would like the act amended in these particulars. The dean of Drake University Law School writes that he is in favor of a uniform law, but is opposed to the proposed act, as it lowers existing standards by permitting the LL. B. degree to be granted after two years' study of the law. He has manifestly fallen into error, as the act confers no authority to grant the LL. B. degree in two years. The dean of the Law School of the University of Tennessee states that he is not opposed to a uniform law and that he approves the proposed act conditionally. He says: "I favor a uniform American standard of law degrees, but have little hope of getting it established; still I am willing to promote the tendency that will some day establish such a result. Some features of the above act do not accord with our university scheme and I do not favor them, but I am unwilling to stand in the status of adversary." The dean of the Law School of South Carolina wrote the committee: "Categorical answers to the questions contained in the blank enclosed with your letter have not been forwarded to you for the reason that they would probably give the impression that this law school is not in favor of the report made by the majority of the committee. Each member of our Law Faculty, which consists of only three, is, I feel sure, in hearty sympathy with the general object of the proposed uniform law on the subject of law degrees. "Unfortunately, however, our state is not yet ready for such legislation. This school is the only law school in the state. The course extends over two years of nine months each, the graduates being admitted to the Bar of South Carolina on motion. "A bill for the establishment of a state board of law examiners has been before our General Assembly for two sessions, but has not yet passed. If this bill becomes a law, as I hope it may at the next session, it will improve conditions very much. "At present a student applying for admission to the Bar is not required to have studied law for any prescribed period. The consequence is that each year students at this school pass the Supreme Court examination before they have completed their law course, and in a good many instances, begin the practice of the law forthwith. "I have said this much, feeling that some explanation is due when a law school seems not to lend its influence, however small it may be, to such an excellent law as that proposed by your committee." The dean of the Law School of the Central University of Kentucky wrote: "I approve the entire act except in so far as it withholds from two-year schools the right to confer the LL. B. degree." The dean of the Washington College of Law (D. C.) expressed approval of the act with the exception of the clause requiring ten hours per week of classroom work, adding that "six hours of classroom work, when quizzing is conducted, is more than the equivalent of ten hours of the ordinary lecture hour.” The dean of the Valparaiso University Law School objects to the act, and says: "The attempt to make the length of time spent in residence as the sole basis (for degrees) seems unfair to those students of best ability." As the reasons which led the majority to the conclusion reached were fully set forth in the report of 1907, no reason appears for further enlarging upon it at this time. The two serious questions, therefore, if they may be called such, which arise in respect to the provisions of the law as proposed remain to be considered: The first is whether the right to confer the LL. B. degree shall be restricted to schools having a three-years' course, the schools having a two-years' course to be allowed to grant only the L. B. degree as in Scotland. Some law schools, though a very decided minority, have not yet adopted a three-years' course, as was recommended by this Association. It does not seem to the committee fair that schools having a three-years' course and those having only a two-years' course should grant to their graduates exactly the same degree. It is an injustice to the three-years' schools and to their graduates and to the public. In England no degree in law can be obtained in two years. In Scotland it can be, but the Scotch law expressly provides that the law degree granted at the end of two years shall be that of L. B., and the degree granted at the end of three years shall be that of LL. B. If in the United States we are to have two-years' schools and if they are to grant degrees, they should be distinguished from those granted by the large majority of the schools, which are now on the three-years' basis. This is upon the assumption that degrees mean something and ought to mean something, and that that something should indicate that those to whom they are awarded have studied law in a law school for a definite period and passed satisfactorily examinations on their law studies. The second serious question is whether the J. D. degree should be granted for graduate work solely as proposed in the majority report, or as a full degree in law at the end of three years of undergraduate study of the law, provided the person has previously obtained a degree in arts or sciences, as proposed in the minority report of last year. In the opinion of four of the five members of the committee of 1907 it was thought that this degree should only be granted to graduate students for advanced work done after the first degree in law was obtained. Since that report the personnel of the committee has changed, two of the former members having retired, but the two new members share in the opinion expressed by the majority in the former report. The present committee, therefore, stands as did the committee of 1907, four to one in favor of the provision concerning the J. D. degree as embodied in the act proposed. The dissenting member, now as then, is Mr. Beale. In the minority report which Mr. Beale made in 1907 he said: "I am obliged to dissent in one comparatively unimportant particular from the report of the committee: namely, its recommendation as to the J. D. degree." If the objection he makes is, by his own admission, to a comparatively "unimportant particular" in the act, it would seem that that "unimportant particular" should not embarrass the Association in reaching a conclusion as to the merits of the act as recommended by the majority, in view of the fact that the law schools of the country are practically unanimous in their opposition to the minority report and in favor of that made by the majority. The committee this year addressed a letter to the deans of the various law schools, asking their opinion of this particular question, as to the granting of the J. D. degree. Their attitude appears in the following table: For the majority report of 1907: University of Colorado, University of South Dakota, University of Washington, University of Utah, Albany Law School, Boston University, Dickinson School of Law, Fordham University, George Washingt'n University, John B. Stetson University, Catholic University of Amer- Tulane University, ica, Central University of Ken tucky, University of the South, Valparaiso University, Vanderbilt University, Creighton College of Law, Washington (D. C.) College of Omaha, Chicago Law School, Cornell University, Cincinnati University Law School, Law, Western Reserve University, Yale University, Y. M. C. A. Evening Law School, Columbus, Ohio. It thus appears that the deans of only five schools favored the minority report. It is to be noted that three of the five schools now confer the J. D. degree as a first degree in law. The two schools which do not confer the degree, but whose deans favored the minority recommendation, are Harvard and the Ohio State University. Further, it is noteworthy that the deans of four schools which now confer the J. D. degree approved the report of the majority as to that degree: viz., Boston University, the Catholic University of America, George Washington University and Northwestern University. The dean of the Law School of the Catholic University of America does not approve the regulation by law of the right to confer degrees. But if there is to be any law on the subject, he states that he approves section five of the law proposed by the majority, section five being the section in dispute as to the J. D. degree. His language is: "Section five I approve adding in the fourth line the words letters, theology, medicine,' and construing the word 'residence' in the last line, as indicated in section four." He had previously stated that he approved section four, provided the words in the last line, "in residence at the institution," are modified or construed to mean only" under the immediate personal instruction of the law professors of the University conferring the degree." The Dean of the Leland-Stanford University, which confers the J. D. degree, neither favors the majority nor the minority report. No reply was received from the dean of the University of California Law School, which confers the J. D. degree. To summarize the answers received from the school conferring the J. D. degree, the majority report as to the J. D. degree is favored by four and the minority report by three, and both reports are opposed by one. The Dean of the Law School of the University of Wisconsin is |