JAMES DE WITT ANDREWS. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION. JAMES DEWITT ANDREWS, CHAIRMAN. The conditions under which the committees work render the reports to a large extent one-man reports, a thing in itself undesirable; a thing in itself embarrassing to the Chairman of the committee in that he can never be sure that the views expressed find the unanimous assent of the Committee, or ascertain until after the fact, what percentage of the Committee approve or disapprove of the report. THE LAST REPORT. The report of the Committee on Legal Education last year was prepared under those circumstances; there was but meager communication between the members, and therefore. it partook in its delivery of the nature of a one-man report. But having been appointed without knowledge or intimation of the proposed action the Chairman presumed it his privilege and duty to express freely the result of his investigations and reflection upon the subject of legal education; not to give a one-sided report, not to belittle the merits of any one theory, not to present views without presenting the other side. We may now speak of the report of the committee in its result. It now has, as it stands in our report, the endorsement of every member of the Committee on Legal Education. The topic or theme of the last report was the desirability of a uniform system of legal education. It was appreciated that this body is not empowered, nor has it the facilities, to REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION. carry out and complete and bring to perfection a uniform system of legal education in the United States. We appreciated that Bar Associations of the United States do not limit themselves to the expression of views in reference to subjects which they have power to pass upon. They assume to raise and discuss questions, and submit them to other bodies or combinations of bodies which in the end accomplish desired results. The growth and success of the bar associations is dependent, largely, upon the fact that they have been successful in a great many instances in bringing about improvements in laws and jurisprudence. The subject of legal education presents itself to some as merely an incident, and an unimportant one to the profession. To me our system of legal education appears as one of the most powerful among the forces of our civilization. The eloquent speaker this morning spoke of the force and the effect of legal education in America during the period of the Revolution; that the American people could not be subdued because of the wide-spread study of legal and political topics. The thoughts, the sentiments, the ideas which are entertained by men, are the forces which control their action, and to my mind the greatest force in human civilization has been the study of jurisprudence. The beginning of true civilization as we see it is found in the first lights of organized law. The consummation of civilization is found in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence; not in the material wealth, not in the arts, but in those institutions which seek to establish an equilibrium between the weak and the strong, or between all of the classes, which in fact tends to eliminate all classes and to establish an equal law for an equal people. That system of Legal Education which this committee has advocated, has as its foundation principle the recognition of the existence of a common system of law and the reason for its advocacy lies in the fact that there must be recognized and made appreciable a system of law, (or a system of juris JAMES DE WITT ANDREWS. prudence, if you please to term it such) distinct from mere methods of teaching; differing entirely from incidental rules or statutes. Within this great legal structure of ours is a system of law and of jurisprudence which is identical throughout the whole broad domain. Those who teach special topics, whether by text book, by lecture or by illustrated cases, are in danger of losing sight of the broad fact that these subjects, important as they are, essential as they are to a whole, are component parts of one grand system. The subjects do not exist apart; they have no educational force, excepting in relation to the other subjects and to the whole; and there can be no perfect comprehension of the part excepting there be an appreciation of the whole. There can be no complete appreciation of the principles of the part, unless there is an understanding of the articulating whole, operating together, controlled by the few fundamental principles, the fewness of which is remarkable. There are not ten thousand distinct principles; there may be tens of thousands of rules but the jurists of America cannot invoke ten thousand different principles of law; they are not to be found. Precisely as the jurisdiction of equity embraces most subjects and equity in a sense becomes a conductor to and a maker of new law, nevertheless it is dominated by strikingly few principles and maxims. A very few maxims and principles well understood will account for all the doctrines and rules which flow from them. The Association, we assume, is interested in the manner in which the profession at large received the report which at that time was adopting ground somewhat in advance of that occupied by the law schools. It was the looking forward to the recognition and adoption of a "uniform system of legal education," not meaning by that phrase that in the schools. they should begin the study here and end it there, or that they should not study the cases, or that they should study the text or should or should not teach by lectures. Not that at REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION. all, but that there should be recognized a system of education which constituted the architectural work and not simply a part of the edifice which was to be builded. In the recognition of this view of a common jurisprudence very naturally there would be diversity of opinion. We have received from different parts of the country letters from something over fifty eminent lawyers and educators, presenting different lines of thought. There was displayed in these two sentiments, one coinciding with the report and with the idea that the practical, the desirable and absolutely neces sary thing was to preserve the integrity of the law, by means of jurisprudence; the other, that it was not necessary. Now, it is interesting to note the reason given by those who expressed the negative view. That was the interesting thing to me, it may be interesting to you. And not to weary you by reference at length, I wish to read a portion of a communication from a Dean of a Law School, in the far West. Naturally, he is one who seeks to teach a department and teach it in a particular way. This professor writes: "Our system is not in the true sense a system at all, such, at least, as the genius of the Roman finally achieved. Real Property and Equity stand each so separate and apart from the rest of the law as to inhibit with us, as things now are, anything like an approach to systematic unity in our law." The idea by this Dean of a Law School is that there is no system of law. Much the same view was expressed in the other extreme of the country. This is the same thing as asserting that we have no jurisprudence in the true sense of the word. The other side of the question is taken in over forty-five of the letters received. The great majority take the view that American law is capable of being systematized, and that we must build it into a system. Among the signatures to these letters are found the names of the most eminent educators JAMES DE WITT ANDREWS. and jurists, well known in every part of the United States. Their sentiments, confirming the view expressed by the committee, are most encouraging. As a typical letter, we select one from Dean Bryant of Wisconsin, for the reason that he believes in using every method of teaching and because from his very long and wide experience he has become correspondingly conservative. Dean Bryant writes: ** * * "I have read with much interest the report on Legal Education. The aim to secure a uniform system of education in our law schools is of vastly more importance than we think. In our schools, the several topics are parceled out to the instructors and each begins on his own lines. I think it would be better if we could so arrange it to have a course more orderly and one that more naturally led the student into the field. The Case System has its advantages; but with it there should be a presentment of the subject for a ground work. I do not expect to see in my time, a perfect system of legal education; but the trend is toward it, and toward a harmonizing of our law and procedure, which in the several states is so nearly alike in substance that one regrets that uniformity in minor and often petty details might not be reached. Our lawyers in practice are too busy to aid much in such works. Our judges are dealing only with cases that come before them, each working from his local hampering of statute and precedent. We cannot yet have codification, but we can draw nearer to uniformity and clarity in our expression of the law by securing uniformity in legal education, in modes of study, in a system of writing reports and in the better analysis given by text writers who are gifted and are masters of the subject." WHY HAVE A UNIFORM SYSTEM. This is the first question which suggests itself to one whose attention is called to the subject. If we can approach that question in the judicial way, the way which gives to every man's opinion its due weight, and discuss it and weigh it and answer it, we can take a step in advance. It embraces a single, simple idea. It may be summed up in a sentence: It is simply the recognition and appreciation that the main body of law is an integral system. Do you believe that |