be sections of the country to-day in which nothing better is available. I think the easy complaisance of bench and bar in such matters is often due to ignorance of the astounding advances that have been made in legal instruction in the last twenty-five years or less, and of the revolution in the character of the law schools. But, however this may be, Milwaukee is not so situated that the existence of such a school there can be considered as anything else than a hindrance to legal education. Milwaukee is but eighty miles from either Madison or Chicago, and not much further from Ann Arbor. At all of these places law schools exist that have libraries, faculties, and ample incomes in no way conditioned upon the precarious fees of students. At one of these schools Milwaukee students may obtain free instruction; at the others, for a moderate compensation. In view of these facts, the maintenance of such an institution as I have described cannot be deemed to fulfill any useful purpose. The law which it sought to have repealed is the most powerful influence at present operative in favor of higher standards in this state.

But we were told-and the published announcements of the institution do not fail to remind us of the same fact—it is a member of the Association of American Law Schools. And this, alas, is true. It was admitted at Milwaukee in 1912 after the Association had adopted a resolution requiring a minimum law library of 5,000 volumes, and after it had been stated on the floor of the Association by the representative of Marquette that it claimed to have a library of "3,000 volumes or perhaps a few more now." (Report of the Am. Bar Ass'n, 1912, p. 963.)

the Association also adopted the following resolution:

"Whereas, the maintenance of regular courses of instruction in law at night, parallel to courses in the day, tends inevitably to lower educational standards:

"Be it resolved, that the policy of the Association shall be not to admit to member ship hereafter any law school pursuing this course." (Rep. of Am. Bar Ass'n, 1912, p.

965.)

Its

Possibly the night courses at Marquette are not "regular," or are not "parallel," or more likely the Association was not advised of the facts. action otherwise seems unaccountable. Of course, the fact is that the admission of this school is only one more monument, where none was needed, to the inability of the Association to resist local pressure from the city whose hospitality it is, for the time being, enjoying. If the Association had never met in Milwaukee, this institution would not now be a member of the Association. That it did not comply with the requirements for admission-notably in the matter of library-was excused by Father Moulinier on the ground that "the school is a private school, as you must know; it is not subsidized." (Proceedings, p. 963.) It was said that it intended to acquire some books soon, and to render itself otherwise fit for admission. No doubt it still intends to.

It is very unfortunate that the Association of American Law Schools should be so susceptible to hospitality. It has fallen a victim to this susceptibility on more than one occasion, when unworthy local institutions have been admitted, or retained-schools that could never have obtained favorable consideration at any other meeting than one held in their own back yard.

them out or compel a compliance with the nominal standards of the Association. At any rate, nothing has happened in the Milwaukee case, and probably nothing will happen until the Report of the Carnegie Foundation's investigation into legal education may perhaps set in motion the sluggish machinery. For fear of misconstruction of motives, I would have preferred to await some such obviously disinterested exposé. But the wanton and absurd attack upon the University of Wisconsin, and the slanderous misrepresentation in allegation, omission, and innuendo of the position of this faculty toward legal education, makes it necessary that the truth should be stated now, even at the risk of present misconstruction and of more authoritative repetition later on.

It was considerations such as these that led the joint judiciary committees of the Wisconsin legislature to the unanimous belief that the cause of legal education in this state was being advanced and not hindered by the existing law. operating as an encouragement to young men to avail themselves of the superior facilities offered by the state. And it was such considerations, no doubt, which led the legislature to adopt the report of its committees. "Hinc illæ lachrymæ."

The author insisted, before the committee, as he does in his article, that in Continental Europe the graduates of the State Universities are required to pass further examinations conducted by the state. But he neglected, and neglects, to mention that in Continental Europe such institutions as that of which he is the sole professor would not be per-. mitted to exist on any terms for a single day. The business of professional education is exclusively a state affair, and the harm which flows from such institu

tions as the Milwaukee one is prevented by outlawing. The state of Wisconsin aims only measurably and not so effectively at the same result, not by prohibiting, but by preferring one to the other. This is a free country, and within extended limits everybody may do what he pleases, even to running a law school three evenings in the week. But the principle of freedom does not require that everything shall be equally esteemed.

If the law school in question has any friends who are really interested in legal education, the course for them to pursue is clear, and it is not an unfriendly hand which here suggests what it should be. The sine qua non should be an endowment of not less than a million dollars. With part of this, they can supply themselves with a good library, and with the income on the balance, wisely invested, maintain an adequate faculty. On the heels of this will swiftly come the abolition of "night schools," the adoption of more adequate entrance requirements than a high school education "or its equivalent," and the establishment of high and scholarly standards throughout. the school itself. When that time comes, it will not find the University of Wisconsin asking for any preferential treatment. Indeed, so far as the writer is concerned, he would advocate, under those conditions, turning over to it the entire business of legal education in the state, undeterred by the fact that it once permitted itself to be bought by a sectarian institution in need of support. For I am not afraid of sectarianism contaminating the law, and there is perhaps no need of two good law schools in the state of Wisconsin. There is certainly no need of any poor ones.

NOTE. Much of interest in this connection may be found in the final report of the Royal

like to ask Professor Richter to think about the matter, and to see if he can find, after taking into consideration present-day conditions, any arguments for his position.

Let me suggest a possible explanation of the attitude, or apparent attitude, of the Law School Association. That body had been completely dominated by four or five schools, which draw their students from all parts of the country. May not that have influenced the expressed view of the Association? It is possible that, even after an adequate debate, a vote of the Association would lead to the result reached. The schools which draw students only from the locality, and which have no diploma privilege, might unite with those of a national following. Of course, they could overwhelmingly outvote the few state institutions which are members of the Association and possess the privilege. But I cannot believe, if the matter were properly discussed, that the vote would be governed by self-interest alone. I might add, however, that such a thing as a real discussion is well-nigh impossible at our hurried meetings. I prefer to think-in fact, I believe that the controlling schools themselves did not consciously foster the notion that admission by diploma is necessarily an evil, from self-interest. Sometimes a pious idea, which incidentally benefits the pious, is not carefully scrutinized. I do not know how the committee of the Section on Legal Education was composed which agreed with the Law School men; but perhaps it consisted of representatives from some of the leading and cosmopolitan schools, or perhaps it took action without an adequate discussion, or an exposition of the other side of the

fair that the graduates of a great cosmopolitan school, such as Harvard, should have to take the bar examinations in Wisconsin, when those who have gone to the state institution are exempt. Perhaps, also, it may seem not quite right that the holders of an LL. B from Marquette should be at a similar disadvantage. But if it is as easy to get by the bar examiners in Wisconsin as Professor Richter says it is, there can be no real hardship. A man with three years. of thorough legal training, in many cases on top of a four-year academic course, should have no difficulty in a test which men who have not had even a high school course and who have studied law in an office one or two years succeed in passing. Professor Richter says. he knows of many instances of the latter in Wisconsin.

But, to be perfectly frank, is not this the situation? Bar examinations are commonly of such a nature that graduates of the best law schools do sometimes fail, while men entirely unfitted pass. If the same ideas prevailed among the examiners as do among law professors, such would not be the case. If the questions were involved hypothetical cases, and the same kind of answers were expected as in law schools, the men with trained legal minds would pass, and the others would fail. But such an Utopian situation we are a long distance from achieving.

It may happen under present conditions that certain men from the great law schools, which draw from all the states, such as Harvard, may fail. Also men from institutions not connected with the state, whose students are mainly local, such as Marquette, may go down. But those from the state institution, whose diploma admits one and all, are safe. Would it not be conducive

to the welfare of the Wisconsin bar if all the graduates from good law schools should pass, and if all the failures should be among the poorly prepared? It should be no satisfaction to Marquette to see a few men from the University of Wisconsin fail also.

I do not accuse Professor Richter of having reasoned all that out. I would rather think that he is still in the situation that I was when I repeated, without thinking, the dictum of the Association of Law Schools. He does not hesitate, however, to attribute bad motives to a great institution of learning, in its desire to retain the right to have its diploma admit. He even goes so far as to insinuate that the member of the faculty of that Law School who is on the board of bar examiners might be unfair to the students of a rival university. Why such aspersions? It seems to me Professor Richter should rejoice that such. a man is on the board. One of the greatest difficulties in the whole problem is the divergence of ideals between the law schools and the boards of examiners. A law professor on a board can do much to bring them together, and to raise the standards for admission to the bar. I should think that it would be only the University of Wisconsin and the professor in question who might object to such an arrangement. It lays the professor and his school open to attack by persons who believe others cannot be honest and straight. If Professor Richter is sincere in his desire to see standards in Wisconsin raised, as I assume he is, he should rejoice that a University of Wisconsin professor is willing to make the sacrifice necessary to serve on the examining board, and to take the aspersions which suspicious persons are likely to make upon him.

The example of Germany, which Pro

fessor Richter cites, is not in point at all, for the conditions there are presumably quite different from what they are here. It seems to me, in the absence of any specific information to the contrary, and from a general knowledge of the situation there, we can assume that the examining board established by the imperial government is competent. With such a board, we could all agree that uniformity is desirable. It is better to have all candidates come before one committee than to have each university determine its own standard. But proper safeguards for admission, including boards with ideals in conformity to those held by experts in legal education, is exactly what we have not in this country, according to Professor Richter's own statements. A false assumption that we have such adequate boards, or a shutting of one's eyes to their inadequacy, is what may be responsible for what I believe to be a false conclusion, namely, that admission by diploma under present conditions is an evil.

I was curious to know what arguments could be set up in favor of abolishing the diploma privilege, and I therefore wrote one of the leading men in the field of legal education, who, I knew, took that position. He had recently asked the legislature of the state to deprive his school of the right to have its diploma admit. That body, with what seems to me wisdom, refused to grant his request. The following was his reply to my letter:

"The reasons why we favor the repeal of the statute admitting graduates of this Law School to the bar without examination are briefly these:

"1. There is a sort of offensive egotism in the assumption that the graduates of this Law School are better prepared for practice of the law than those of other law schools whose graduates apply for that privilege.

"2. This statutory privilege removes a sort of check upon the work of the favored law