yers dominate on county, state and national committees. If a volunteer organization springs up for public purposes, lawyers direct it.

I lately asked Ex-Senator James D. Phelan why our city governments break down in emergencies. He answered: "We elect too many fools and rascals." The question was put while hearing Senator Phelan on the anniversary of San Francisco's earthquake speak of the utter break-down, " fade-away," of their local authority. He told how the citizens organized and managed affairs until the crisis was over. All this without yes or no from the regular powers.

I repeat the question, I ask you why so many public authorities quail and fail, fall to pieces, in disaster, emergency? Then it is that people, having no confidence in public ability, organize for selfprotection, take the powers and discharge the functions of local government. Martial law is not infrequently resorted to.

I leave it to you to confirm what I have said. You can recall, no doubt, instances of political collapse in the wake of floods, fires, riots, earthquakes and other causes. Let me mention the cases of Seattle, Astoria, San Francisco, Omaha and Galveston.

Even in smaller units the same thing is observable, due to the same reason. In the early days of Nebraska rampant horse stealing broke out. I well remember seeing father go out at night with his rifle as one of a vigilance committee to patrol his part of the county. There should be no excuse for extraofficial committees to govern in time of trouble nor for outside interests to use our governments under cover.

I would like to see these excrescences cut out. I would like to see the blood of the body politic run strong and pure. I would like to see the standard of official capacity, executive ability, administrative success permanently lifted up. This must be done. Populous states, great cities cannot be governed as easily as frontier settlements. A country of 130,000,000 cannot with safety be carried on with the carelessness, extravagances, good nature and indifference of a pioneer period. It has not the same resilience. Lawyers must lift the standard. If not, who will? They must at least furnish driving force, leadership. Come what may, there is no remedy, nor relief, in more offices, more occupants. This is but aggravation. Abler public service, abler

administration, men of brains and management, is the only way up.

What shall be done to bring more capable personnel, executives, administrators, managerial capacity, business aptitude, actual ability to public office? There is but one answer—prepare, train men for public place. As well expect a "silken purse out of a sow's ear" as to expect much from young men or old men without training who are suddenly by the hurlyburly, hocus-pocus of an election elevated to a responsible position. It is worse in the category of personal appointees for political services.

It may be said trained men will not be elected nor appointed. That is a bridge not to be crossed until we come to it. The opposite is true of other enlightened countries. It must be made true of our country. If not, we shall sink under the accumulating burden of unsatisfactory self-government.

Does business pitch men into ruling positions like horses are jumped over fences and ditches? Managers and head men reach their places round by round, or else they are fortified by special training. They are not treated like sheep in a shambles. Business knows the value of certainty of tenure to produce men of worth. High grade public service will never come as long as worthy subordinates are kicked out with each election.

Coming again to the conspicuous part of the bar in the fate of the republic, a lawyer, I maintain, is under obligation to be specially prepared beyond the purpose of earning his bread and butter. His opportunity, his civic obligation reaches beyond professional success. Fortunately our colleges and universities have courses in Business Administration. My conviction is that every college and university should teach Public Administration.

Here should be taught the science of government, the principles of statecraft, local, state and national. Here should be taught the character and management of public offices. This would include roster, civil service, budget, revenues, receipts, debts and expenditures, properties, utilities and the various other undertakings political subdivisions now engage in. Besides municipalities, school and port authorities, irrigation and drainage districts, an increasing number of other bodies of political origin must be noted, each calling for management.

Municipal case work should be followed. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities should be studied and compared. Likewise of certain states. The inquiry why certain cities have characteristics such as boodle and booze, bossism and lawlessness should be answered, and why in a crisis authority fails. The careers of noted governors, mayors and other public men, their strength or weakness, should be pointed out. Foreign states and cities, their administrative methods, attainments and failures should be compared with ours. Disraeli late in life took up an intensive study of the principles of public administration, having special reference, of course, to the English practice.

Lately there has been formed an "Institute of Municipal Administration (a School for County and City Officers), auspices University of Southern California, Los Angeles." Its first session is set for August 13-18 this year. Its tentative curriculum is practical. I hope this will be an example to other states. I have seen Professor Emery E. Olson, Director of the Institute, and told him I would speak of it on this occasion. Summer schools for this purpose will draw men already in office and aid them to see to it that a dollar spent brings a dollar's worth to the taxpayer. They should help the office-holder to carry on through his daily grind the idealism of the candidate.

Lawyers, however, should come to this knowledge and training as a part of their law course. It would be sagacious to do so. We know that many of them will soon be in office. My law course was barren on this subject. Would not such studies also make better forensic practitioners? I have spoken to a number of law students. With one accord they approved the idea. Elderly lawyers have done the same. I ask you to consider it.

I cannot conclude better than to repeat my conviction that what is best for the country requires that every law student should be taught the principles and practice of public administration. Is it not then a civic duty of Bar and Bench to bring this about and to provide law courses suitable to this end? In this way only will the lawyer's responsibility for ability in public office be sincerely met, although even then but partly discharged.

As members of an ancient profession we owe it our best. As an honored, privileged profession we owe our best to our country.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND
ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR

The meeting of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar was called to order promptly at 7.00 o'clock on the evening of Thursday, July 26, 1928, immediately following a dinner which had been sponsored by the Section. Arrangements had been made for seating all who wished to attend the meeting of the Section but who did not care to attend the dinner. The total attendance at the Section meeting was about 150, of whom 115 had been in attendance at the dinner.

Mr. William Draper Lewis, of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Section, presided and H. C. Horack, of Iowa, was made Secretary pro tem.

After the reading and approval of the minutes of the meeting held at Buffalo in 1927, the Chairman appointed the following Nominating Committee: Alexander Armstrong, of Maryland, F. N. Angellotti, of California, and Forrest Donnell, of Missouri, instructing them to report nominations of officers and new members of the Council before the close of the meeting, at which time other nominations might be made from the floor.

The report of the work of the Council, as printed in the Program of the American Bar Association, was presented. Mr. Lewis then delivered the Annual Address of the Chairman (see infra, p. 625), stating that it had been considered by the Council and, therefore, represented to a very large extent their ideas, as well as his own, for the future work of the Council and the Section. After reading his address, Mr. Lewis spoke of the criticism that had been offered with reference to the time for holding the meeting both last year and this year and of the difficulties which had been encountered in the past in securing a representative attendance at the meetings of the Section, and asked the cooperation of all present in securing a large attendance

at the next meeting when, in compliance with the new constitution, the meeting would be held a day prior to the opening session of the American Bar Association. He expressed the wish that such an attendance would be representative not simply of law school men but of practitioners, of men representing every school of thought, men opposed to the standards and those who favor the standards which the Association has adopted; and he invited suggestions from those present as to how the meeting for the coming year should be made most profitable and successful. He stated that it was the duty of the Council to work wholeheartedly for the adoption of the American Bar Association Standards throughout the country, this work being educational in its nature and to be carried on largely through local organizations.

In calling for discussion of the Chairman's address, Mr. Lewis announced that he would not hold the speakers with strictness to discussion of the exact matters touched on in his address, but that any matters in the annual report or in regard to the conduct of the Council might be presented and discussed as the time at the disposal of the Section might permit.

Mr. Gleason L. Archer, of Massachusetts, then took the floor and commented upon the report of the Council, stating his disagreement with the statement in the report of the Council as to the opportunities of the poor boy to secure an education. preliminary to law study. He addressed himself to the question of the poor boy problem and challenged the statement made by Honorable Elihu Root at the special meeting of Bar Association Delegates at Washington, D. C., in 1922, to the effect that every boy worth his salt can get two years of college training, claiming that though this might be the case in the western and central states and in some of the smaller colleges, conditions in the great eastern colleges have so changed within five years that the poor boy is crowded out and the boy of college age cannot, by working for a year, earn the amount required for a year at college. He also spoke of the orphan or the boy who, by reason of poverty, is obliged to leave school and assume his share of the expenses of the family, saying that such a boy has no opportunity of getting a college education even if his tuition and expenses are furnished him. He then discussed the situation as