student to such mental processes as are to be his very tools of trade when he starts upon his independent career is the method that will best fit him for any responsibility he may assume for his first or his last client."'! Harvard has pursued this method for a quarter of a century, and Columbia, within a few years, has followed her example. Both have done great things for the cause of legal education in America. At this point, however, it is proper to recognize that while law is in its essence a science, it is nevertheless, in our day, in some of its aspects a trade. There must, therefore, be trade schools where the primary end in view is admission to the bar of some particular city. For such a school the consideration of educational problems is useless. It should be run wholly on business principles. It should follow public opinion and not lead it. Curriculcum, location, hours-all should be determined with reference to the convenience of the class of students from whose patronage it is to derive its profits. Except in rare instances such an institution will have little dignity, but it will make money. Here is a picture of the Columbia Law School in the days when its diploma admitted, ipso facto, to the New York Bar-when Professor DWIGHT and his method were, perhaps, in the zenith of their fame. "There were, on the average, not more than ten students using the library at one time. The room was usually empty; but just before or after a recitation it was a popular resort. The order was not good, loud conversations—often on politics were carried on, tobacco was freely used, and there was no place to leave hats or coats. Many of the students never used the library. Those serving in offices hurried to the school just as recitations began, and left the instant they 'See "The Dwight Method" by THOMAS FENTON TAYLOR. Harv. Law Rev., vol. 7, p. 203. This admirable article did not come under my notice until this paper was half written. It is a satisfaction to have additional weight given to many of the views here suggested by the circumstance that they have been asserted independently by Mr. TAYLOR. He writes from the point of view of the lawyer who has had a practical experience of the so-called "Dwight Method," and his paper, while calling attention to inherent defects in the system itself, makes it entirely clear why it is that the " Dwight Method" cannot exist apart from a Dwight as its exponent. ... were finished. The questions were put quickly and with wonderful tact. .. No student ever had his "faculties tried in the highest degree," or was ever driven to a standstill. Every student was "encouraged." . . . The final examinations for a degree were oral, and throughout specifically like the recitations."" Where, however, a law school is a department of a university the considerations urged in this paper are obviously in place. A university which allows its educational policy in any field to be controlled by the business principles which determine the policy of a trade school, must at once forfeit its right to be considered among the forces which make toward highest education. If a university offers instruction in law, that instruction must be given upon the basis of the best development of educational science. If under existing conditions, when only two eastern law schools conform to this standard, it could be conceived that such a policy would in a particular institution, result in financial loss, then expenses must be cut down by diminishing the corps of instructors or the school must be closed. "A university cannot temporize, but, despite ulterior considerations, it must strive to furnish the best possible education in the law." In university law schools, then, research methods must prevail—and it is contended that the research method of learning law is substantially identical with the so-called “Case-System," which has been already referred to. Professor KEENER prefers to give to this system the name of the inductive method of teaching law. This name is suggestive; but I prefer to emphasize the fact that it is the student himself who is the actor under this system. Something more is required of him than that he shall put himself in a receptive state. He himself takes the field and actually plunges into the wilderness of the law. If there is a mountain to climb, and if he desires to become an expert climber, the student becomes like one who is not content with studying the admirably clear treatise on mountain climbing contained in the Badminton Library—or even with ascending the peak by a route that has become familiar. He 'Harv. Law Rev., Vol. 7, p. 205 et seq. sallics forth with his guide, determined himself to experience the sensations of the explorer, not unmindful of the fact that his ultimate object is not to reach the top of this particular peak but to learn so to climb that he may climb hereafter. The function of a teacher under the "Case-System" in the department, say, of corporation law, or the law of the quasi contracts, is precisely analogous to the function of an Alpine guide in the case of an expedition of unusual difficulty. No one who has had the benefit of the services of a guide on such an expedition will object that this method of instruction is not distinguishable from solitary and unaided study. Of course it may well be that under particular conditions, it is impracticable to adhere exclusively to the “Case-System" in its typical form in all the branches of study. Lack of ability upon the part of an instructor so to manage his class as to push the work forward with the necessary rapidity often makes it necessary to cover a portion of the field by means of textbook study or by "forensic lectures." Sometimes the magnitude of the field and the limited number of hours at the instructor's command induce him to adopt a similar expedient in order that his students may obtain a rounded view of the whole subject. Again it may often be found desirable (as Professor KEENER points out") to lighten the work of beginners by the use of a text-book during the first year of study, when the student is unacquainted with technical terms and unfamiliar with legal modes of thought. In such cases, however, there is no abandoning of the research method as the normal method to be pursued in the higher legal education. It is therefore absurd to say, as Professor CHASE, the Dean of the New York Law Schools, says in this connection—“ and so the Dwight method emerges again as the safe reliance when other methods fail." Perhaps, indeed, Professor CHASE must not be taken too seriously; for the circular from which this extract is taken is obviously the advertisement of a particular law school, although it is cast in the form of a discussion of educa tional methods. Even the language of the passage just quoted -"the safe reliance when other methods fail"-has long ago 'Yale Law Journal, March, 1892, p. 148. been appropriated by the writers of advertisements and cannot be used without at once suggesting to the mind that a business enterprise is being forwarded. The point insisted on, however, is that educational principles recognized in the other departments of institutions which are engaged in the work of higher education must be recognized also in their law schools and that the first duty of a university. law school is to set definitely before itself the true educational ideal and then subordinate every other consideration to its attainment. The Annotations are prepared by the following Editors and Assistants : Department of PRACTICE, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE. Hon. George M. Dallas, Editor. Assistants: Ardemus Stewart, Henry N. Smaltz, John A. McCarthy, William Sanderson Furst. Department of CONSTITUTIONAL Law. Prof. Christopher G. Tiedeman, Editor. Assistants: Wm. Draper Department of MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Hon. John F. Dillon, LL. D., Editor. Assistant: Mayne R. Long streth. Department of Equity. Richard C. McMurtrie, LL. D., Editor. Assistants: Sydney G. Department of TORTS. Melville M. Bigelow, Esq., Editor. Assistants: Benjamin H. DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS. Angelo T. Freedley, Esq., Editor. Assistants: Lewis Lawrence Department of CARRIERS AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES. Charles F. Beach, Jr., Esq., Editor. Assistants: Lawrence Godkin, Owen Wister, Victor Leovy, Cyrus E. Woods. Department of Admiralty. Morton P. Henry, Esq., Editor. Assistant: Horace L. Cheyney. Department of COMMERCIAL LAW. Frank P. Prichard, Esq., Editor. Assistants: H. Gordon Mc- Department of INSURANCE. George Richards, Esq., Editor. Assistants: George Wharton Department of CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL Practice. Department of PATENT LAW. George Harding, Esq., Editor. Assistant: Hector T. Fenton. Hon. Clement B. Penrose, Editor. Assistants: Alfred Roland Department of MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. Hon. Marshall D. Ewell, LL. D., Editor. Assistants: Thomas Department of WILLS. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. H. La Barre Jayne, Esq., Editor. Assistants: George S. Patterson, |