Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Administrative Code of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. This is a compilation of the acts of the former legislative council of the Moro province, and of the executive orders, circulars, and regulations issued thereunder, revised and modified to conform to the organic act for the department of Mindanao and Sulu." Further rules and regulations and instructions necessary to carry the code into effect are appended. The administrative council of the department, with the approval of the governor-general, amends the code from time to time.

The governor of the department of Mindanao and Sulu, with the approval of the administrative council, is also authorized to make and prescribe rules for the general welfare.

66

Provincial Resolutions. Provincial boards issue resolutions or take action under another name having the same effect."

Municipal Ordinances and Resolutions. All of the local governments, the city of Manila, the city of Baguio, and the Municipalities and townships are authorized by the legislature to enact ordinances and resolutions, although the more general term "regulation" is also used. The city of Manila compiles its ordinances as "the revised ordinances of the city of Manila."

69

Municipal ordinances are local laws prescribing a general and permanent rule.68 Resolutions only differ in being of a special or temporary character ordinarily enacted with less formality. Both ordinances and resolutions are as binding upon the people within the municipality, but not beyond it, as are the acts of the legislature within the Philippines.70

[To be continued.]

causes pending and at issue" and that in such cases "notice of trial will be sent to attorneys or litigants, and failure to receive said notices will not be considered an excuse for non-appearance," has never been put in force under the provisions of section 6 of Act 190; is not of uniform application throughout this jurisdiction; and is in direct conflict with the practice followed in many of the courts throughout the Islands. See also 11 Cyc. 740. 65. Code authorized by act 2408, sec. 55; see also sec. 27 (j), act 2408, and sec. 2564, adm. code; these laws have the effect of continuing "existing legislation." Acts of legislative council enacted pursuant to act 787, sec. 12, 13.

66. Act 2408, sec. 8 (s).

67. Act 83, sec. 13, as amended; act 1396, sec. 17, as amended; act 2408, art. 11.

68. Citizens Gas & Mining Co. v. Elwood (1888), 114 Ind. 332; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Western Pac. R. Co. (1906), 144 Fed. 160, 181; Trinidad v. Sweeney (1905), 4 Phil. 531.

69. Blanchard v. Bissell (1860), 11 Ohio St. 96; Cape Girardeau v. Fougeu (1888), 30 Mo. App. 551.

70. New Orleans Waterworks v. New Orleans (1896), 164 U. S. 471, 41 L. Ed. 518; 4 Op. Atty. Gen., P. I. 84.

SHALL THE STANDARD LAW COURSE BE EXTENDED TO FOUR YEARS ?1

BY PAUL L. MARTIN2

Von Jhering says in his "Struggle for Law:"

"The end of law is peace; the means to that end is war.

The

life of the law is a struggle-a struggle of nations, of state power, of classes, of individuals."

If it be true that the life of the law is a struggle, it is equally true that the life of legal education is a struggle. Hence, it is not strange that approved methods of preparing for the practice of law have run the gamut from the days of office study to the present period of law school supremacy. According to the United States Commissioner of Education, there were in 1870, 28 schools of law in the United States; in 1872, 42; in 1882, 48; in 1892, 63; in 1902, 102; in 1912, 124; and in 1914, 122. These figures sufficiently indicate the growth in the number of law schools in the United States, but do not tell the story of the struggle toward higher requirements as does an analysis of the figures for that period showing the length of course required in the various institutions. In 1872, four schools had a one-year course; twentyeight, two years; one, three years; one, four years; and eight failed to report on the length of their course. In 1882 there were only two one-year schools; thirty-five schools required two years; five three years; two reported both one and two-year courses; and four schools failed to report. In 1892 there were five one-year schools; forty-three requiring two years; ten, three years; two reported one and two-year courses; and three failed to report. In 1902 there were five one-year courses; thirty-eight, two-year courses; fiftyone, three-year courses; two four-year night courses; one school reported one and three-year courses; three 1eported two and threeyear courses; and two failed to report. In 1912 there was only one one-year course left, and only twenty two-year courses; ninetytwo schools were requiring three years; six night schools required four years each; three schools reported three and four-year courses; one reported two and three-year courses; and one day school reported a four-year course.

1. Dean of the Creighton College of Law, Omaha.

2. [In view of the developments referred to in an Editorial Note of this issue, it seems right to say that this article was written and accepted several months ago, and that limitations of space have prevented earlier publication.-ED.]

It is evident from these figures that the rate of increase in the number of schools was greatest for the period extending from 1892 to 1902, being 61%, as compared with 31% for the preceding decade and 14%, for the decade preceding that-the rate of increase from 1902 to 1912 being 21%. These figures probably indicate that there will be no decided increase in the number of law schools for some years, particularly if we bear in mind that according to the last report of the United States Commissioner of Education there are only one hundred medical schools of all classes in the country; fifty schools of dentistry; and seventy-two of pharmacy. Moreover, these figures show that within the decade of 1902 to 1912 the three-year law course has become standard, the one and two-year schools clearly being doomed to disappearance. The struggle of the schools to raise their standard not only for admission, but also for graduation is apparently being felt and it is probably safe to say that the next decade is to witness the total disappearance of the one and two-year schools, the raising of the requirements of the three-year schools both for entrance and graduation, and a decided improvement in the equipment and in the teaching methods of the schools generally.

It may not be amiss to consider whether the tendency toward lengthening the law course, so evident from the figures given above, is not destined to carry us, in the not far distant future, to the fouryear standard course. Before considering the matter on its merits, it may be interesting to note that the standard medical course has moved up from three to four years, and that, commencing in 1917, the standard dental course is to move on from three to four years. Standard medical schools have not only been requiring four years for some time, but many of them are now talking about, and some are now requiring, a fifth year devoted exclusively to practical work in a hospital. Then, too, the longer period of study generally required by the foreign law schools is at least worth considering.

It is undoubtedly true that the law school teaches substantive law better than the office could, but the practitioner has until recent years enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the practical teaching of adjective law. It is true that the schools have been offering courses on evidence and pleading, but until recently little attempt has been made to teach the application of adjective law, which is generally called practice. Now, however, the schools are taking a gradually growing interest in teaching not only the theory of both substantive and adjective law, but also the practical application of the law to particular cases through elaborate courses in practice,

through Moot Courts, Legal Aid Societies and various other means. The common objection urged against the attempt to teach the practical application of the law has been that a three-year course does not provide time enough for proper instruction in both the theory and practice. Then, too, it has been said that a man who is properly grounded in the theory will learn the practice for himself after graduation, and sometimes it is suggested that the schools, regardless of the time at their disposal, cannot compete with the office in the teaching of practice.

The answer to the first objection seems to be emphatically in favor of a fourth year, thus giving the schools ample time to supplement the training of the first three years in theory with a year of practical application. The answer to the second objection, namely, that if a man is properly grounded in the theory he will learn the practice, is that the schools presumably exist to prepare men for the bar and not for an apprenticeship in an office. They have practically superseded the office as a place for legal instruction and they should carry the whole burden. No medical educator suggests that medical students should be graduated after three years' study and then turned loose upon the public to learn how to practice at the expense of their patients. The standard medical course covers two years of what might be called theoretical work and devotes the last two years to practical training in the dispensary, the out-patient clinic and in the hospital. Law schools should try to do as much for their students as the medical schools are now doing for the young doctors.

The answer to the third objection, namely, that the school cannot compete with the office as a place to study practice is not sound. It is true that some states require an apprenticeship in law after the completion of a law school course, but in most communities it would be idle to suggest that the law office is a better place to learn practice than is the law school. The same organization which has enabled the law schools to supplant the office in the teaching of the theory of law ought not to break down under the task of teaching practice. Of course, no one thinks that any school can discount the value of experience, and it will always be true that the most marked success at the bar will be apt to crown the efforts of him who has long been accustomed to meet the battles of the practitioner; but the law office with its emphasis on the care of its clients' interests, with its likelihood of specialized or restricted practice, with its staff recruited from the view-point of each individual's ability to insure the success of the office rather

than because of his ability to teach, is not, taken in the large, a desirable substitute for the properly organized law school as a place in which to teach practice.

Some one may object that only he who practices can teach practice. This argument may be sound, but there is no reason why the schools cannot, by a careful selection of their staff, procure as teachers of practice, men who have shown their capacity for this work and who, moreover, have the qualities that go to make successful teachers. There is no gainsaying the fact that the successful practitioner, whose professional interests are sufficiently varied, may be a most competent teacher of practice, and, if he has the leisure and inclination, may do a great deal for the young man, or possibly for two or three young men, who are privileged to come into close personal contact with him in the daily conduct of his work, but obviously it would be a hopeless task to try to find enough of such men in this day and age to accommodate the graduates of the law schools of the country each year. The only alternative therefore is the law school-its courses on practice being in charge of a practitioner fitted for the work-but this additional burden cannot be sustained by the schools in the present threeyear course, and the addition of another year will therefore ultimately be necessary.

As was said by ex-President Meldrim of the American Bar Association in his annual address before that body in 1915:

"Law is made for society and must meet its actual needs. When it fails to do so, respect for it is lost, and its power for good is destroyed. 'The law of a nation,' says Mr. Bryce, 'is not only the expression of its character, but a main factor in its greatness.' The true measure of a people's greatness is their respect for the law."

No one need be told that law and lawyers are now, as ever, deemed the legitimate object of public and private attack-their motives being constantly misconstrued, their methods ridiculed and their profession condemned. The millenium is a long way off and law and lawyers must always expect to be criticised, but there is no doubting the fact that both the cult and its votaries would deserve and gain a much higher respect were lawyers more efficient in the discharge of their onerous duties.

Efficiency presupposes training as well as talent and application. The schools have no control over talent or opportunity, but they may do much for proficiency and until they assume the burden, rightfully theirs, of training men not only in the theory of law but of actually preparing them for practice, as do the schools of medicine, of dentistry, of engineering, etc., legal educators will

« PreviousContinue »