the Supreme Court and in behalf of the litigants before that Court, I ask for this change.

MR. F. H. BUSBEE, of Raleigh. This is a matter of which I think a great many members of the Association need information. I am sure that applies to myself, but, certainly, the objections to the change, I think, should not be made upon some of the grounds that were made by my friend from the University. He says there are many lawyers who are not members of the Association, and we have no right to speak for them. This is an organization for the lawyers of the State. I think my friend will admit that it is representative in its membership of the members of the Bar, and from wide spread localities. The same thing might be said of the Medical Association of North Carolina-that they would not be qualified to examine the doctors, because there were doctors not worthy of it. We are not standing up for the dignity and the power of this Association if we discredit ourselves by saying there are many lawyers who are not members. Again, it seems to me, certainly, every organized body representing a profession, except the Bar, itself determines who shall constitute its membership. It is not asked by this movement that it should be done here, because it is suggested that it shall be done by the Supreme Court. Certainly it is very difficult to find five good law examiners in North Carolina today. As Judge Avery has said, they could not be very easily pointed out, and my friend, Judge MacRae, says that he was entirely disarmed by the remarks of Judge Avery. It seems to me that we sometimes try to be too conservative. It is the easiest thing in the world to say that this is going on for a thousand years, and, therefore, we will stand by it. We will not look to other States. By whom was the examination made in North Carolina before the '70's? We were examined by law teachers, and chiefly by Judge Pearson and Judge Battle, and, practically, therefore, while examined by the members of the Supreme Court, we were examined by the men who had taught us. I think Judge MacRae was examined by Judge Battle. My father went to Judge Battle

and read law with him. We are working them a little too hard for that now. It is seriously worthy of question whether or not we should have a body of skilled examiners. We can get them. It will not be so difficult to train them. You can get these men from men who have been law teachers. Take Tom Ruffin, who was a most admirable teacher and is now a lawyer. I don't think any member of the Bar Association would seek to repeal the rule passed, without great objection. I think almost all of us would admit that two years is short enough time within which to admit applicants for the examination of law. There are objections, but certainly there must be some stronger ones than we have yet heard to induce us to refuse to adopt this manner of examination.

MR. EDMUND JONES, of Lenoir. I had made up my mind that I should say nothing in this matter, but I will say, with the greatest deference for my two friends from Wake County, that I have been listening for a reason for this change, and as their speeches do not commend themselves to my mind, I cannot but feel myself disappointed when I say they have said nothing as yet to justify it. I would respectfully call the attention of the gentleman from Wake to this fact that the vast States and Territories in the West that he has set up as examples to us, do not, of themselves, commend it to me. I might as well say, Mr. Chairman, let me have South Dakota and its divorce laws.

MR. WOMACK. South Dakota and the other States that I named are the ones supporting this position.

MR. JONES. I will state that I thought the thirty-three States and Territories were in favor of this change, and only a few in favor of mine. Take the policy of rotation of Judges; we went back to it, and today it is the most distinguishing mark of our individuality, and one of the greatest and best forces that we have in our department. I say that after deliberate meditation. Last winter I happened to be in the State of Pennsylvania, and I went into some of

those great courts. I found what they call their paper books, and have not been so refreshed in my Blackstone in many days as I was on that occasion. It is the same in Maryland and in the District of Columbia. It is not to the same ex

tent the case in the great State of New York, but I will say that New York, except in one particular, is not so much upto-date as North Carolina. I do not believe there is a State in the Union that has a more up-to-date system than North Carolina. Now my distinguished friend here talks about conservatism. One of the greatest blows to my State pride that ever I had in my life was when as a mere boy I went as a member of the Legislature of 1870, and I saw upon the door of that hall where we met, "House of Commons." It made me very glad. I wish it was the House of Commons now, but they have changed it to the House of Representatives because it was English. I remember my distinguished friend, the late Samuel Philipps, never would call it anything else. Now, Mr. Chairman, coming down and laying all else aside, it does seem to me that we are not going to improve the members of the Bar by leaving their knowledge to be tested by a Committee appointed by the Bar Association. I do not know how it may be with other members of the Bar, but speaking for myself, I make the broad declaration that I was a better lawyer when I got my license than I am today. After the license we have nothing to do for a time but sit down and study the elementaries of the profession. Now, in making this change, suppose we appoint my two friends from Wake and my friend from Guilford as a Committee to examine applicants to the Bar. What they can't do directly, they ought not to do indirectly. We have had here for thirty or forty years examinations by the Supreme Court. It has become a fixture, and we know what to expect. There is no shifting and changing from time to time. They can do better themselves directly what has been done for so many years than they can do by others. I do not see any use of this change. I don't believe it is going to bring any higher class of lawyers into this Association, and, from my experience, I will say that I do not believe there is a State in the

Union today that has better prepared lawyers to come into their Bar than the State of North Carolina. I submit that unless a better argument is produced than I have yet heard, I hope that the Supreme Court will still be the door through which men will enter the profession.

MR. MACRAE, of Chapel Hill. Mr. President, I desire to say a few words in this connection. I have been a member of this Association from the start, and have a high regard for it, and have no idea of discrediting the Bar Association of North Carolina. The trouble is, Mr. President, that the question always comes up in the late hours of one of the last nights of the meeting when we have not time to discuss the matter properly, and I shall move to postpone this matter until the next meeting of the Association. There is a tendency upon the part of all professions, callings, etc., to erect some barriers around the profession. The medical profession has its Board of Examiners, the pharmacists have their Board of Examiners, the doctors have theirs, and the funeral directors have theirs, and I hope we will soon get into line with them, but I move that we postpone the matter until the next meeting and that it be taken up in the daytime.

THE PRESIDENT. The question as to the disposition of the report of the Committee is, upon the motion of the gentleman from Orange (Mr. MacRae), to postpone the matter until the next meeting. Is the House ready for the question?

MR. J. CRAWFORD BIGGS, of Durham. I trust that the motion of the gentleman from Orange will not prevail. This matter was brought before the Bar Association two years ago. It was reported to the last meeting of the Bar Association by full report, and I would respectfully submit that it is not fair for the gentleman from Orange to say that it is brought up at a late hour of the session. It has been before this Association for twelve months, for two years. Why should we not pass upon it now? We can't afford at each session to take up a matter and discuss it an hour or two and then postpone it for a year. As for myself, I am in favor of the adoption of the resolution. To my mind one

reason alone is sufficient, and that is that the Supreme Court, as I am informed, asks that this be done, and why? Because they are taxed to their full capacity with work, and they wish to be relieved of this heavy burden, in order that they may give more of their time to the consideration of appeals before them. They wish to be given two weeks more of time. Is that not a sufficient reason that this matter should pass? There is one other reason which I wish to suggest, and that is that if this matter is passed, it will have a great tendency to increase the usefulness of this Association in North Carolina. What were we organized for? To uplift the moral tone of the profession, to increase the standard of legal education. To promote reforms in the law. If we can have this matter placed in the hands of these examiners it will give us a much better influence, and whatever, I submit, increases the influence of this Association thereby increases the influence of the general profession. If we do this we are doing what nearly every State in the Union has done. Next month there will be a meeting of the Law Examiners of the Union at Narragansett Pier. It is the policy of all the States to follow this course now, and what is the reason for not doing it. When my distinguished friend was standing here making his argument, I felt that I was listening to the same argument that he made two years ago in Asheville. At that time it was my privilege to be associated with him in a law school. My friend feared a change, but the change has been made, and I believe he will now say that the change has redounded to the good of the law schools and the profession of North Carolina.

MR. MACRAE. When a man goes there and studies for two years I think he ought to have his license. Some of our best lawyers in the country had but one year of study.

MR. BIGGS. Do I understand my friend to say that we should go back to the one year?

MR. MACRAE. I did not intend to say that.

MR. BIGGS. I will amend the motion of the gentleman