to the Supreme Court for admission until the local board of the district in which he resides reports favorably to the State Board on that question. Speaking generally, the local boards perform their duties in this regard in a careful and conscientious way, and it is one of the most fortunate features of our Pennsylvania system that while vesting in a central board the duty of applying the educational tests, both preliminary and final, it still imposes the duty of scrutinizing the moral character of the student upon a local body, composed of lawyers who live in the community in which the student lives, and where he intends to practice and who must look forward to more or less intimate professional relations with him, if he is admitted to the Bar. The spirit existing between the State Board and the various local boards is one of co-operation and harmony.

For some years prior to the appointment of the State Board in 1902, most of the Common Pleas Courts had been requiring some kind of preliminary education as a prerequisite to the study of law. Without pretending to possess an intimate knowledge of all of these requirements, I am sufficiently familiar with the subject to say that they varied greatly. In practically every district, a college graduate was permitted to register on his degree. In some districts a certificate of graduation from a high school was sufficient. Most of the local boards conducted a preliminary examination, oral or written, for those who did not possess college or high-school diplomas, and these examinations varied greatly with respect to severity or leniency. There was less restriction in the subjects of the examination, these consisting of what may be called liberal studies. The Supreme Court Rules, which took effect the first Monday of January, 1903, provided that no person should be registered as a student at law until he should have passed a preliminary examination before the State Board upon the following subjects:

1. English language and literature.

2. Outlines of universal history.

3. History of England.

4. History of the United States.

5. Arithmetic, algebra through quadratics, and plane geometry. 6. Modern geography.

7. The first four books of Cæsar's Commentaries, the first six books of the Eneid, and the first four orations of Cicero against Catalinus.

This requirement remained in force from January, 1903, until July, 1910, when it was modified by a provision that the holder of an academic degree from a college or university approved by the court could register on his degree without undergoing the preliminary examination. But for six and one-half years every applicant for registration as a student at law in Pennsylvania was required to pass a preliminary examination.

Most of the members of the board felt that the requirement of a preliminary examination of every one had worked well and they were not in favor of the rule accepting college degrees.

Of course, it was often a good deal of trouble and occasionally some hardship for a college graduate to go back and brush up on courses he had not pursued for several years. Occasionally a college graduate, who was undoubtedly fitted to study law, failed in his first effort at the preliminary examination, because he had been unable or had neglected to do the necessary review work. On the other hand, the preliminary examination had the effect of turning away those who were not really serious in their intention to study law; it weeded out at each examination several young gentlemen who had escaped with college degrees, but without either scholastic information or mental discipline, and it had a good general effect in requiring every man to meet the same standard.

The rule accepting college degrees has worked fairly well, but there are two very difficult problems in this connection which have been constantly coming before the board and courts: first, what institutions shall be recognized; second, what degrees shall be recognized. The actual standards of work and discipline of American colleges vary enormously; and indeed the standards and discipline of a particular institution are apt to vary from time to time, dependent largely upon the personality and ability of the head of the institution.

But all college catalogues read pretty much alike, and although the court may feel that the standards of a given institution are not what they ought to be, yet this is such an intangible element and one upon which opinion may so easily differ, that it is

extremely difficult to reject an institution on this ground, especially when its petition is backed by several successful and respected members of the Bar who have themselves graduated from the institution. I have more than once had occasion, in this connection, to recall the incident in the argument of the Dartmouth College case, when Webster brought tears to Marshall's eyes, "It is, as has been said, a small college, but there are those who love it." Then, too, so long as the court undertakes to make a list of approved colleges, exclusion from the list seems a reflection upon an institution, and the head of a struggling college, who is contending against heavy odds, makes a very appealing plea.

There is the further question as to what degrees shall be accepted. When the court adopted the rule accepting a college degree, it used the phrase, "academic degree," meaning by this a degree based upon liberal studies as distinguished from-technical studies. But a very large percentage of college students pursue technical courses and the pressure upon the court to accept technical degrees has been very great. Moreover, under the present election system, the mere fact that a student possesses a given degree, such as A. B. or Ph. B. or B. S. in Economics, conveys almost no information as to what studies he actually pursued in college. An examination of the catalogue of the institution in question and a certificate enumerating the specific courses pursued by the student are necessary to obtain satisfactory information of what his studies have been. This involves, then, trouble and red tape and a difficult exercise of discretion by the board or court that undertakes to administer the rule. Our Supreme Court's present instructions to the board are that the board shall accept any degree granted in a course that includes, either as an entrance requirement or in a course, Latin, equivalent at least to the Latin requirement of our preliminary examination. This requirement was reduced a year ago to the first four books of Cæsar's Commentaries and the first four orations against Catalinus. With the exception of the rule accepting college degrees, therefore, every applicant for registration as a law student in Pennsylvania is required to pass the preliminary examinations of the State Board.

Of course, the real standard of any examination is to be ascertained not so much by an inspection of the printed require

ments or even by the questions themselves, as by the standard of the marking of the papers. Again, speaking generally, I think it is fair to say that the marking of the papers in mathematics and Latin is quite lenient. Were it otherwise, I fear we would soon have no Bar in Pennsylvania. But the board aims to make the examinations in English literature and in English and American history fairly strict and searching, and the papers are marked with considerable attention to the mental maturity and grasp displayed by the student. Much would be gained, in some cases, were the board to consider, in connection with the student's papers, the student himself, based upon a personal interview with him and a knowledge of his previous schooling and experience. This matter has been frequently considered and discussed, but the dangers of a change seem to outweigh the advantages to be gained.

In conclusion, it is possible to exaggerate somewhat the importance of rules regulating admission to the Bar. Many things go to make or mar the character and standards of a Bar. The most important, I believe, are the standards set by those who attain to prominence or leadership in the profession, and by the economic, political and social factors that determine the class and kind of young men who are attracted to the law. These influences are at least as weighty in determining what the Bar shall be and what it shall stand for as any requirements for admission that can be promulgated by rule of court. Nevertheless, the requirements for admission to the Bar are one of several important factors that determine what the Bar of the future is to be. Based on an experience of 15 years, during which I have acted as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Board, my own decided judgment is that whatever the board has accomplished towards improving the standard of admission has been chiefly in raising the requirements for a good preliminary general education and in emphasizing the importance of a careful investigation of the moral character of the applicant by local boards which are in a position to deal adequately with this question. I venture to suggest that those interested in this subject and especially those charged with the administration of the rules regulating admissions, can devote their attention to these two matters more profitably than to any other phases of the subject.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SECTION OF PATENT, TRADE-MARK AND COPYRIGHT LAW

Saratoga Springs, N. Y., Tuesday, September 4, 1917. The Section was called to order by the Chairman, Robert H. Parkinson, at 3.05 P. M.

The report of the Secretary having been previously printed and distributed, the reading of same was dispensed with.

The Chairman then delivered his annual address.

(The address follows these minutes, page 593.)

The Chairman then introduced John P. Bartlett, of New York, who read a paper on "Public Opinion Reflected in Patent Decisions."

(The paper follows these minutes, page 604.)

The Chairman:

We will now pass to the election of the successors of your present officers.

I may say it has been my intention since our Washington meeting to yield my place to a worthy successor. I went to the next meeting intending to insist that I should not serve longer—I had then served two years. At that meeting, the attendance was one which would make this look like a crowded house. There were not enough present to have elected the new officers. Last year, at Chicago, I insisted upon your electing my successor. You have been very kind to me, and I appreciate it. What I undertook to do then I shall do now, and henceforth shall serve in the ranks. I shall be glad to have you elect my successor to this position, for which I am not a candidate.

Mr. Church (Washington):

I well know your feeling about the election. Your underlying thought, as I understand it, is that we should have rotation in