tion. The defendant's attorney examines the papers, moves to dismiss the suit, or pleads in abatement, or demurs, or pleads to the merits. If he fails to make defence in proper time, the plaintiff takes judgment by default against him. In many of the cases the attorneys are required to present their evidence in the form of depositions, containing original and cross-examinations of the witnesses; and in some cases oral examinations are allowed in the presence of the court and jury. The benefits result ing to the student from such practice are ob vious. When the case is ready for trial a jury of students is empanelled, the evidence on each side introduced, the cause argued, and the jury charged by the court. Their verdict is rendered, and judgment and exe cution follow. Motions for new trial are made and overruled, and appeals taken to the Supreme Court. And so the suit at law is carried through all its phases. Equity cases are in like manner announced, and suits commenced and carried through all the processes known to the Chancery Court. Cases are so framed as to put the student under the necessity of preparing the various kinds of instruments that are used in the transactions of men. Thus the moot-court system not only indoctrinates the student in the elementary principles of law involved in his cases, but also in the law of remedies. It trains him also to the discus sion of facts, and to the exercise of that tact so important in real practice. In addition to these regular courts over which the professors preside, the students organize themselves into clubs and have courts of their own, electing their own judges and other officers, and preparing their own cases. In this way their spare time is spent pleasantly and profitably. The professors do not keep marks indi cating the standing of the student It is thought the stimulus afforded by the pres ence of the class and a careful examination of every student every day are sufficient. As a rule the student who merits high grad
ing does not need the incentive, and he who does not deserve it would do no better by reason of it. At one time it was the practice to have a valedictorian in the gradu ating class, and he was chosen by a majority vote of his fellows. This, however, did not work well. It frequently happened that the valedictorian was selected because he was a favorite, or on account of his fine declama tory powers, or because he was a member of some influential college fraternity. The matter finally came to be a serious one. Students who desired the honor began to electioneer for it while members of the Junior class, and there were often rival candidates. In the course of the canvass hard feeling was sure to be engendered, and even bloodshed sometimes threatened. These student feuds became a nuisance and a stench. The faculty, intending to remove the cause, took into their own hands the appointment of valedictorian. Nor, indeed, was this satisfactory. It was ascertained in a little while, at the beginning of each term, which of the students were striking for the prize, and all could see that the choice would be confined to one among perhaps a half dozen. The result was that those students who discovered that they were distanced grew jealous of the contestants, and what was worse, relaxed their own efforts to do well. Still another difficulty presented it self. It is well known that the best student is not always the best speaker. The pro fessors, therefore, in awarding the valedictory to the best student, sometimes presented to the audience an awkward, ungainly fellow, who mumbled his piece so as to make the whole affair rather ludicrous. Furthermore, it now and then occurred that two or three of the contestants were so nearly equal as to make it impossible to discriminate justly between them. Indeed, on one occasion the faculty appointed two valedictorians, not being able to decide which was su perior to the other. These considerations induced the faculty to abolish the honor entirely.
