THE theatre party is an old subject by this time, and yet we cannot refrain from giving expression to a few thoughts bearing both directly and indirectly upon it. We all read the descriptions in the daily press and knew at once that they were grossly exaggerated. Overlooking all this exaggeration there were still enough disgraceful proceedings connected with the whole affair to place a lasting stigma upon the students generally. Nor do we think the letter written by one Law School man helped the situation in the least. We do not have to deal with the question how those same men act in the class-room and at their own homes, nor whether they are the sons of well-bred parents. The plain question is, How did they act that evening? With chagrin we must admit that they disgraced both themselves and their College. We do not mean to say that every man who went in that theatre party behaved himself unbecoming to a gentleman. Unfortunately many of our best men were at the theatre. Nevertheless, the old saying must apply, that a man is judged by the company he keeps, and the gentlemen who went with the rest must necessarily shoulder their part of the disgrace. It will not do for them to say that they went simply to see the fun. Their presence added just so much encouragement. They knew that there would be a set of men in the party, who went with the sole intention of raising a Bowery row, and it was their place to remain away. Not for a moment would we create any ill feeling regarding the results of the whole affair, but no one can say us nay when we wish to express our honest opinion.

Columbia has been encouragingly free from such demonstrations of late years, and it is a pity that with the first year of her university extension she should have

such a disgraceful proceeding placed to her credit. But it is of even more regret to the TIMES to have to admit that those who succeeded in making the biggest rowdies of themselves were Law School men. Again it is a pity that the longer some men remain in college they should look upon themselves as clothed with greater privileges, or that the fact that they are on the rolls of a reputable college gives them a moral right to use the property of others according to their impulsive desires. "What is right in your college life is right anywhere and everywhere. What is wrong anywhere else is wrong in college. The Golden Rule does not bend around a crooked college act."

We are not advocating any sentimental or religious principle, but one which every man who is qualified to enter this Law School should know and should uphold. It is nonsense to argue that "to destroy property is wrong in a cowboy, but right in a college student"; or that "to take a bellowing calf up a man's stairway, through his attic, and leave it upon his roof, half frightened to death and half frightening to death the immediate neighbors, is wrong in a town boy, but right, even manly and honorable, in a college boy"; or even that to walk along a public city street upsetting ashbarrels and disturbing the inhabitants on all sides by their yells and loud jests, is wrong in a set of drunken roughs, but "gentlemanly" in a number of—we say regretfully-overbalanced college students. There is no such thing as college ethics.

We have written plainly and freely, for we have no fear that we will be misunderstood, or that those who are innocent will feel that we mean them. If such a thought should arise, we have but to recall the old saying of Napoleon that the truth only stings.

PETITION.

To the Honorable President and Trustees of Columbia College:

We, the undersigned, members of the middle class of the School of Law, Columbia College, do most respectfully petition. you, upon the reasons hereunto annexed as follows:

I. That you permit us at the end of the present scholastic year of 1891 to take an examination of such a character as has heretofore been deemed necessary to merit the degree of LL.B.

II. That said degree be conferred at the end of the present session upon those of our number who shall satisfactorily pass such examination and receive the recommendation of the faculty.

(Signature of Members.)

REASONS.

I. In all the history of Columbia College no class has ever before been, or in all probability will ever again be, placed in the like unfortunate position which the present middle class now occupies.

II. That the class at the close of the present session will have completed the course of study upon which, for thirty-two years, the degree of LL.B. has been conferred.

III. That said course is the only course upon which said degree has ever been conferred.

CHANGE OF METHOD.

IV. That the class entered the college upon the faith in and reputation of its professors and distinctive method.

V. That the said professors have withdrawn.

VI. That the said method has been abandoned.

VII. That the class might be reasonably supposed to have considered the possibility of changes in some chairs, but they could not have been expected to anticipate a change in every professorship and a departure from the method which has been pursued in every department of the university since its foundation.

VIII. That, from present prospects, as set forth in the new circular, the class cannot reasonably expect to be able to acquire as much in the third year as the reputation of the old method justified them (on entering the school) in expecting.

IX. That the class, having been trained to the old method, cannot apply their ability or knowledge in its fullest usefulness in the new, and could not be a fair exponent of its theories.

THE COMBINATION OF OFFICE PRACTICE AND COLLEGE STUDY.

X. That theory and practice are inseparable, and that in the proposed course the combination of office practice and college study are rendered wellnigh impossible; whereas, under the old curriculum, such combination was encouraged, and the possibility of effecting the union. of theory and practice was a great inducement to many to enter the college. And that, by reason of such change in said old curriculum, many members of the class, eminently worthy, will be debarred from continuing their studies, because their limited means will not permit them to attend college unless at the same time they can earn a living in a lawyer's office.

XI. That, by the advice of the faculty and upon the representations of the old

circular, many members of the class postponed their one year of required office study for admission to the bar until the third year. The new circular forces such members to the alternative of giving up their college work and hope of a degree, or postponing their studies in the lawyer's office till the completion of their college course. Such postponement would result in lengthening their legal studies to four instead of three years, as required by the New York Court of Appeals.

DEFECTS IN THE PROPOSED COURSE AS AFFECTING THIS CLASS.

XII. That the new circular purports to make the third-year course elective, but renders any election impossible by the imposition of two conditions, viz.: (1) the requiring of ten hours per week in the lecture-room, and (2) the prohibition of a re-study of those subjects once pursued.

XIII. That the old method of pursuing the study of one subject to its completion before commencing another has been abandoned, and the concurrent study of different subjects substituted. And this (we submit with deference) seems to be a serious imperfection.

Now therefore, upon the reasons above stated, we respectfully submit to your honorable body the annexed petition.

PRESIDENT'S ROOM,

COLUMBIA COLLEGE. NEW YORK, April 17, 1891. Messrs. Dallas Flannigan, Walter D. Clark, Eugene Sondheim, Wm. H. Speer, Jr., Wm. P. Martin, Committee.

Gentlemen :-The petition to the Trustees placed in my hands by you was duly presented by me at the last meeting of the Board, and was referred by the Trustees to the Law Committee for reply. I have

just received from the Chairman of the Law Committee the accompanying document, which at his request is herewith handed you as the reply to this petition. Respectfully,

SETH LOW,

President.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE,

NEW YORK, April 17, 1891.

Messrs. W. S. BEADLES and others. Gentlemen:-Your petition to the Trustees of Columbia College, praying that the members of the present Middle Class in the Law School be permitted at the end of the present academic year "to take an examination of such character as has heretofore been deemed necessary to merit the degree of LL.B.," and that such degree be conferred upon the members of the class who "shall satisfactorily pass such examination and receive the recommendation of the Faculty," has been referred to the Law Committee for reply.

Your request is, in substance, for a change in the statutory requirements effecting the course of study and the requirements for a degree which were in. force when you entered the school.

Previous to the year 1888 the Statutes of Columbia College relating to the Law School provided for conferring the degree of LL.B. upon students who had completed a course of study covering a period of two years. On May 7, 1888, the rule was changed. The following statements were made by a committee having the matter in charge, and were accepted at that time as affording satisfactory reasons for the change. You will perceive that these considerations are equally applicable now.

"It certainly cannot be claimed," said that committee, "that of the subjects. which ought to be included in anything like a complete legal education of a lawyer,

more than a very general view can be acquired in three years, and to give the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws for anything less than this would seem to depreciate its value.

"It is true that in the early years of the School, when the degree entitled its holder to be admitted to the Bar without further examination, and when the provisions for legal education outside of the law schools were very meagre, the fact that a student could obtain the degree by two years of attendance was an important step towards elevating the standard, then very low, of legal requirements. But that period has passed. The rules now in force in the State of New York require, ordinarily, three years of study before examination, and the allowance made for any portion of that term spent in a law school is made a mere certificate of the time so spent. Whatever may be the regulations in other States, the value of a degree should not, it is submitted, be considered with any reference to such regulations. The diploma, therefore, in the opinion of your Committee, should be restored to its purely scholastic value.

"While the founders of the Law School and its Warden and professors may feel a just pride in what it has done towards creating a better standard of professional education, your Committee are of the opinion that the time has come for making a step in advance. The course should be made a three years' course."

Thus in May, 1888, the Trustees determined that from the commencement of the scholastic year, 1888-'89, the degree of Bachelor of Laws should only be conferred upon students thereafter matriculating who should have pursued a three years' course. The change thus introduced was ordered to be advertised in the principal news

papers of the country, and all students who have matriculated since June, 1888, have done so with full knowledge of the fact that the Trustees had decided to require three years' legal study as an essential preliminary to the degree of LL.B.

The present Middle Class matriculated in October, 1889; so that it is not the first, but the second class which has entered under the requirements which this petition asks may be abandoned. Such a request cannot be granted.

The reasons advanced in support of the petition appear to be based largely upon the approaching changes in the faculty. The Trustees greatly regret the retirement of three of the professors, two of whom have long been in the service of the Law School, and especially do they regret the retirement of the eminent man who has been for almost a generation at its head. They also avail themselves of this opportunity to express their esteem and regard for Professor Chase, and their appreciation of his long and faithful service. But the changes thus made necessary do not appear to the Trustees to be any reason for giving up a policy deliberately adopted by them and publicly announced nearly three years ago.

With regard to certain objections urged against the scheme of studies announced for next year, it is enough to say that the concurrent study of different subjects is the method in use in other parts of the College; that the requirement of an attendance of ten hours a week upon lectures does not seem to the Trustees a defect in the course; and that it does not appear to them unreasonable to require students in their third year to pursue subjects other than those they have previously gone over. So far as the hours of attendance are concerned, it is the wish of the Trustees to

arrange the lectures for third-year students as far as possible so as to facilitate office work; and if the schedule of 1891-'92 proves upon trial to be unsatisfactory in this respect, the faculty of the Law School may be applied to for some modification.

It is intended that additional courses shall be offered during next year, in the late hours of the day, upon the N. Y. Code, Insurance, and possibly other topics; and the restriction as to repeating lectures will be waived for next year, so that the ten hours of required work may be made up from any part of the course.

Some inconvenience to individuals in

carrying into effect any alteration in the curriculum is, perhaps, unavoidable; but

application may always be made to the faculty of the Law School for such changes in details as do not affect the general policy of the Trustees. It is the hope and expectation of the Trustees that in this way arrangements may be made which will obviate any reasonable ground of dissatisfaction.

Respectfully yours,

STEPHEN P. NASH, Chairman of the Law Committee.

G. L. RIVES,

Secretary of the Committee.