teach one the use of law books, or the mechanics of the digests, nor does it give him an inkling of the thousand and one little things that the expert brief-maker will use every day. But after a student has briefed one point of law, he knows where to find it ever afterwards. And in the briefing of that point he has touched the edge of possibly a dozen other subjects, in such a way that he will know where to look for them if occasion demands. Also, in order to find his point he has been compelled to use the books, and to use them in the manner lawyers use them,

It is not claimed that the reading of cases should be dispensed with. That would be impossible under any system. But it is urged that the reading of cases does not give the student the instruction that the other method would in the same time. It certainly is a poor way of teaching the use of the books, and the habit of attacking each problem as an individual, both of which the student must sooner or later learn.

The result of the present method is the turning out of graduates who are bewildered when confronted with a strange set of facts. If they cannot classify them, and have not had a case in which the same points were decided, they don't know where to begin their search in the books. And the young lawyer has simply got to learn a whole lot that he should have been taught along with other subjects while in school. Would it not be better, and wouldn't the student cover more ground in briefing fifty cases, than if he merely read and recited on five hundred?

Now as to objection number two, that teaching by the proposed method is really brief-making, and that the schools are rapidly adding that branch to their coursAn examination of over fifty an

es.

nouncements, taken from the leading law schools of the United States, shows a little over 15 per cent as having a course that in some way attempts to teach what is suggested here. And that course is, almost without exception, tucked away at the end of some light term, and in no school, whose announcement was examined by the writer, was it given the time in proportion to its importance.

Here is a subject on the proficiency of which the young lawyer's success or failure depends, and for the most part it is left to the student's own initiative whether he learns anything about it or not. If he is not of an inquisitive turn of mind, and prone to outside investigations, he may pass his examinations in a creditable manner, receive his diploma, and leave the law school as uninformed as he was when he entered respecting the use of law books. He will have the learning about the law, but he will be ignorant of the use of the tools. Then is it any wonder that he cuts his hands when he tries to use them?

"Oh," the stock expression is, "he'll naturally learn how to use the books." Some people seem to think that a knowledge of the use of law books comes without an effort. But after watching the performance of several hundred different lawyers in court, the writer is convinced that a good percentage of them did not know where or how to find the law. It was either that, or they were too lazy to look it up, and one dislikes to think that.

Hon. Horace E. Deemer of the Supreme Court of Iowa says: "Brief-making is an art in which there are few masters. I have been amazed at the helplessness of law students, and even of lawyers, when they go into a library to search for authorities. A good lawyer is one who knows where to look for the

law, and after he has found it knows what to do with it. Law schools should teach their students how to do these things."

The writer has had the use of a large law library, and has seen attorneys who had been engaged in practice for years come into that library and be compelled to get instruction from the librarian on how to use many of the books. They did not know how to brief a set of facts, did not know how to look up the law in a thorough manner, or exhaust the authorities on a given point. Surely when they went into court, with the kind of a brief they were capable of preparing, they did not go there with that assurance of being right that an attorney ought to have.

Of course the attorneys alluded to in the above are not engaged in the most

lucrative practice in their states, and their names have no special significance, but they are the rank and file of the profession. They are in the fold from which are selected many of our public officers, and in many instances they are elevated to the bench.

Certainly there would be a great difference in the product of the schools if the time that is devoted to teaching the case method as it is taught to-day was given to fitting cases to facts, instead of reading so many cases. Then when the student left his school he would be a master of his tools. And when the client stumbled into his office, with a set of facts badly tangled, the young attorney would know where to start in order to unravel the tangle. And with that knowledge firmly implanted in his system, he is on the high road to success.

THE

HE hands of the clock, resting just above the American eagle immediately behind the Chief Justice's chair, point to 12. The court crier's gavel is brought heavily down with the words, "The Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States," and as those seated in the courtroom arise to their feet and silence reigns, from a small anteroom to the north quietly approach those few of our countrymen in whose hands are daily placed the cords which bind us together as a great nation, and who consider, determine, and construe the principles upon which our American institutions are founded, daily deciding matters involv

ing the liberties and fortunes of the American people.

Robed in black gowns, they solemnly approach the bench, headed by the Chief Justice, and, passing around to the rear, take their seats at the nod of the Chief Justice while the impressively spoken words of the crier are distinctly heard throughout the room: "O yea, O yea, O yea! All persons having business before the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court!"

The room in which the court now sits

was until the year 1859 the Senate Chamber, at which time it was necessary for the Senate to seek larger quarters in consequence of the gradual increase of its membership by the admission of new states. The Supreme Court room was at that time what is now its library, directly underneath.

The furnishings of the present court room, while rich in design and quality, are quite simple. The room itself is a semicircular arrangement, with a low domed ceiling. Ionic columns of Potomac marble form a loggia, supporting a gallery on the east side. In front of these columns is "the bench" consisting of a slightly raised platform on which are placed nine large, comfortable chairs, immediately in front of which is a desk extending the full length of the bench and upon which the Justices keep their dockets, records, etc.

The Chief Justice occupies the chair in the center of the bench, and the Associate Justices are seated four on his either side, the oldest Associate Justice, in point of service, occupying the chair nearest to the right of the Chief Justice, and so on. In front of the bench are located the tables and chairs of counsel, with a limited number of seats set apart for members of the bar. At one side of the bench will be found the desks of the reporter, marshal, and court crier; while on the opposite side is situated the desk of the clerk of the court.

Extending around the rear of the room on both sides of the general entrance door, are seats for spectators, who every day while the court is in session come into the room by the hundreds, stay for a few minutes, and then move out again noiselessly, for quiet must be observed in the Supreme Court of the United States, especially by those whose presence is by courtesy rather than by right.

Around the walls of the room are the marble busts of the former Chief Justices, John Jay, John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Salmon P. Chase, and Morrison R. Waite, and these constitute the entire wall decorations.

The court meets on the second Monday of each October and sits until the latter part of May. It usually hears the argument of cases for three or four weeks, and then takes a recess for two or three weeks. This recess is believed by the public generally to mean a vacation, but such is not the fact; for during these recesses the Justices do their hardest work-that of writing the opinions in cases which have been heard or submitted on brief, decided, and assigned at the argument sessions.

When the court is in session, it assembles every day, except Saturday and Sunday, promptly at 12 o'clock. The first few minutes are consumed in the hearing of applications for admission to the bar and other motions, at the conclusion of which the regular call of the docket assigned for the particular day is begun. As the cases are called they must either be passed for reasons satisfactory to the court, argued or submitted on briefs.

When a case is submitted on brief (and a great many are thus disposed of) the counsel simply mention this fact, and the printed record (for all matters must be printed before presentation to the court), briefs, etc., are by the clerk laid on the desk in front of each Justice. If a case is to be argued, the court allows counsel on each side a certain length of time, varying according to the importance or magnitude of the question, within which to present the matter.

At 2 o'clock the court takes a short recess for luncheon, reappearing at 2:30

and immediately resuming the transaction of its business, which continues until 4:30, at which hour, and it may be said at which minute, matters it not what may be the situation with respect to the case before it, it arises and adjourns until 12 o'clock the next day.

Upon the conclusion of each day's work the records, briefs, etc., in cases. that day heard or submitted, are gathered together by the messenger of each Justice and carried to the Justice's residence. Singular as it may seem, Supreme Court Justices have no offices, save such as they personally provide in their own residences, and it is here that the cases are studied out by each Justice individually and separately and prepared for consultation, as likewise are all petitions for writs of certiorari and applications for writs of er

ror.

Every Saturday during the argument session is consultation day, and at 12 o'clock on this day the Justices all assemble in the consultation room, which is separate and distinct from the court room, and behind locked doors discuss and consider each individual motion, application, case, etc. When a decision is reached-and by a decision is meant a majority with the same view of the particular matter-the case is assigned to one of the Justices voting with the majority for the writing of the opinion of the court.

So much of the time during the argument session is taken up with the hearing of cases and the study and preparation of them for consultation that there is but slight opportunity afforded for the writing of opinions during such argument sessions, and it is for this reason, as already stated, that the recesses are taken.

When a case has been decided in consultation and assigned for opinion, the

Justice to whom it is assigned must again

study it and sift it down to its very foundation and then write out the reasons of the court for deciding the case this way or that. Of course, the time consumed in the preparation of these opinions, as well as their length, varies, governed more or less by the importance of the matter and the difficulty of the question at issue.

When an opinion is written out by the Justice (and each has his own particular method of writing them, some with and some without the aid of their secretaries), it is sent to the printer, who is a private contractor and not a general government employé, but who has been doing the work for many years; and in order that its contents may be closely guarded and kept from the public until the proper time comes, it is cut up into sections and distributed among several typesetters, so that no one of them sees the opinion in whole. And when it has been set up in printed form, a proof is returned to the Justice sending it, who corrects and revises it, and then returns it to the printer for final copies. When these final copies are received, one of them is forwarded to each of the other Justices, who examines it and notes on its back the fact of his approval or disapproval. And after these copies have all been returned, the work is finished and the opinion ready to be handed down.

Every Monday is opinion day, and the opinions are handed down on that day, the Justices having opinions simply announcing from the bench after court has opened that they are directed to deliver the opinion of the court in case number blank, so and so against so and so; and after reading the opinion or the important parts thereof, they hand it to the reporter, who has it published in the Supreme Court reports.

Each Justice has his own secretary and

messenger. The messenger is a negro man; and when a Justice dies or resigns, his messenger goes to his successor. Some of these messengers have been in service of the court for many years.

In the doing of all things above specified the secretary aids the Justice so far

as is practicable. One of the chief duties of the secretary, however, is to be entirely ignorant of the existence of such a thing as the Supreme Court of the United States, and to politely turn to a discussion of golf or bridge when asked as to the workings of that court.

The next meeting of the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association will be held in Washington, D. C., on October 19, 20, and 22, 1914. The sessions will be held in the mezzanine gallery (Pennsylvania Avenue front) of the New Willard Hotel.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 19, at 2 O'CLOCK.-A session for State Bar Examiners and Law School Teachers, under the auspices of the Section. Opening remarks by the Chairman of the Section, Charles A. Boston, of New York. A paper on "The Historical Evolution of the Board of Law Examiners, and its Influence on Legal Education," is to be read by Robert M. Hughes, of Virginia. A paper on "The Results of a Comparative Study of the Examination Questions Framed by State Boards of Bar Examiners," is to be read by I. Maurice Wormser, of New York. Special discussion of the topic presented in the last paper will be opened by Lawrence Maxwell, of Ohio, and Harlan F. Stone, of New York.

MONDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 19, at 8 O'CLOCK.-A session for State Bar Examiners and Law School Teachers, under the auspices of the Section.

A paper on "The Diploma Privilege" is to be read by George E. Ballhorn, of Milwaukee, Wis. A general discussion of the topic presented will follow. In connection with this discussion an opportunity will be offered for the presentation of resolutions relating to either the afternoon or the evening session.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 20, at 3:30 O'CLOCK.-Annual address of the Chairman of the Section, Charles A. Boston, of New York.

Presentation of the final report of the Committee on Standard Rules for Admission to the Bar, by Lucien H. Alexander, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.

• A Symposium: "The Importance of Preserving in our System of Legal Education the Professional Ideals which are Dependent upon Apprenticeship in the Law."

(a) "An Existing Defect in the American

A COURSE IN "PROBLEMS OF CONTEMPORARY LEGISLATION"

The Subject.-The subjects of inquiry and discussion are legal problems. This is worth emphasizing, because it must not be supposed that the course is intended or allowed to introduce into the law school curriculum any research in the economic, social, or political field as such. The materials concern the American lawyer's profession as he finds it to-day and in prospect. And they concern topics that the student has already met in the usual courses, in their judicial and not in their legislative aspect.

The list of topics in the printed List of Topics and References sufficiently shows this feature. Each of them involves one or more well-known rules or body of rules already familiar as part of the present law. Its aptness to present conditions has been questioned. The problem is, not merely to ascertain