Examinations for the Bar. subjects which he had studied. What they had done was to acquire a slight and super ficial knowledge of the subjects and to learn and remember long enough to reproduce them the answers to a large proportion of the questions, which the previous experi ence of the coach enabled him to say would probably be put in the various papers,— questions, which through a long series of years, bore a strong family resemblance to one another. The feat was one of memory. Lord Russell contented himself with sug gesting whether a better or additional guar antee of learning might not be secured by some other method. The experience of most bar examiners would doubtless enable them to present in stances, perhaps none so startling, but, after all, of the same sort, as those verified by Lord Russell. In 1898 Air. Gregory of Wiscon sin gave to the association the case of a young man who was admitted to the bar of that State after having studied law in the university for part of one year. In the same year he was elected a judge. I wonder how, as judge, he would construe the statute of the State requiring a candidate for admission to the bar to have studied law two years. T have known candidates to pass the bar ex amination in Ohio without any real knowl edge of the subjects upon which they were examined. Their chief text book was one of the well known law quizzers, and their chief or sole instruction that of an ex perienced professional coach who had made a collection of questions put during previous years, those of each year bearing a strong resemblance to the questions of prior years, and who was able in that way to train his candidate to answer a sufficient number of the questions to receive a satisfactory mark. One of these law quizzers is aptly described in the publisher's announcement as "a boon to those about to apply for ad mission to the bar," with the statement added in large type that "no person study
95
ing law can afford to do without it." 1 have recently read the examination pa pers of several States with a view to ascer taining the character of questions put. In some States, as in New York and Michigan, definitions and questions which can be an swered categorically seem to be eschewed, and only concrete problems are put, which require the student to state the legal rights of parties upon a given state of facts, with ¡lis reason. This is the method pursued in examinations in the best law schools. It can- hardly be doubted that it furnishes the most satisfactory test of the student's mastery of the subject. In the examination papers of one State, I find such questions as these: "What is a note, a bill of exchange, a draft, a check, a due bill, a certificate of deposit, a letter of credit? What is a part nership? What is a dormant partner? De fine lands, tenements and hereditaments. Define a bilateral contract, a unilateral con tract, a divisible contract. What is a surety? Define trust and maxim. Define guardian, master, fellow servant, respondent supe rior." While no one can safely say that definitions ought not to be called for in any case, such questions as these present no significant test of the student's knowledge of law. In the same set of examination pa pers, I find questions such as these, which sec: л to be equally valueless: Is there a bill of rights in the constitution of the State?" "How many congressional districts are there in the State?" "What apt words should be used in a deed to convey land in fee simple?" Since bar examiners are required to ex amine large classes, the examination must necessarily be in writing. Ordinarily no other test is necessary. The paper shows either that the applicant is well prepared, or that he is so deficient as to call for no other test. There are cases, however, where the examiner may have a doubt which an oral examination -may dispel. Indeed, some ex aminers believe and have declared to this as
