manent place in the laws of the country. (Reads President's Address, see Appendix.) (Prolonged applause.)

Mr. President: I wish to announce that the Executive Committee will meet immediately upon the noon adjournment. The convention will now be adjourned until 1:30 o'clock p. m.

Afternoon Session, Thursday, August 7, 1913, 1:30 P. M.

Mr. President: Gentlemen, I am requested to announce that the club rooms on this floor are open to your use during the entire session of the convention, day and evening. That is not confined to this room. It is the entire club rooms of the Elks' lodge. They have extended them for our use, and we have accepted the courtesy.

Bishop Keator will not be here until tomorrow morning. We will therefore proceed with the program next in order, suspending that address until the morning. Next on the program is "The Life and Character of the Late Chief Justice Dunbar." Is Mr. Hughes present? Judge Turner sent his address, being unable to attend, and it will be presented to you by Mr. E. C. Hughes, of this city.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. President, Judge Turner being compelled, unexpectedly, to go East, requested me to read his address, which I will now do. (Reads paper. See Appendix.)

Mr. President: "Judge Dunbar, the Man," will be responded to by the Honorable Wallace Mount. (See Appendix.) Mr. President: "Judge Dunbar, the Jurist," Mr. P. M. Troy.

:

Mr. Troy Mr. President. (Reads paper. See Appendix.) Mr. President: The local Committee on Arrangements

wishes to make an announcement.

Dean Condon: Mr. President, in behalf of the Committee on Arrangements, I want to mention what you already know, and call your attention to the fact that this evening, at 8:30 sharp, in this room, there will be carried forward certain features of entertainment, some of a physical and some of a dietary

form, and we desire very much to have you here promptly at 8:30. We expect to have a good time. It is for gentlemen only. All our visiting ladies we desire to entertain at the Orpheum, and we would be very glad if you would give the names of them to Mr. Trefethen or Mr. Aylmore. You will find them always around here.

Mr. Shank Mr. President, I have been reminded of the fact, in the last few months, that there is no public record, such as is usually made of the death of our distinguished citizens, especially those who are members of the Bar or the Bench, made of our beloved late Chief Justice Dunbar. This Association has not held a session since he left us. It seems to me that it is the appropriate thing that action should be taken by this Association to commemorate his life and his works in some suitable memorial before the court of which he was a member and that, likewise, it would be appropriate that some token should be placed in that courtroom as a reminder of him, and to that end, I am going to offer, if it be in order, the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Association that suitable memorial services should be held in the Supreme Court of the state in honor of the late Chief Justice Ralph Oregon Dunbar, and that some suitable token in the form of a bronze bust or painting be presented to the court by this Association in honor of the memory of Judge Dunbar;

And be it further resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the President of this Association to arrange with the Supreme Court for the holding of such services, to raise whatever funds are necessary, and to do any and all other things necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution.

I move you the adoption of this resolution, Mr. President. The Secretary: I second the motion, Mr. President. Upon being put to the house the motion unanimously carried. Mr. President: The resolution will be placed upon the record. I will announce the committee later. The next order of business is "Obituaries," Hon. John Arthur.

Mr. Arthur: Mr. President: (Reads paper. See Appendix.) Mr. President: The report of the Committee on Legal Education, Mr. John T. Condon, chairman.

of the Bar of this state condemn severely the method of teaching law by cases. Now, the only difference between the case method and the textbook method is illustrated in this way: If any one of you would take the trouble to take the first edition of Chitty on Pleading, you will find Mr. Chitty has taken those old cases at the time of that edition, read them and cited them and digested them and put the substance of those cases in the text and built up a big textbook. That is the old form of a well-written textbook, at presenting the hackneyed method of making a few general statements and then citing several cases, some of which sustain and some of which do not. As a result, the student goes over the method as employed in Chitty's work, he studies it and he gets up and recites it. The case book method is, I think, but a turning of the textbook method upside down, employing a system of logic to test the cases by, and you are going through the same mental processes Mr. Chitty went through, getting the results that he has in his textbook, and benefiting by reason of going through those same mental processes. It is true that in the same course of time you will not go over so many legal principles by your case method as you will by the textbook method, but, if the work is done accurately and properly, the case book method will develop the reasoning faculty by thus studiously applying the legal principles, and, after all, gentlemen, that is the work of this endeavor, and that is about all you can get into the student mind by the light of explanation.

Now, I think that will start something. I have a few suggestions here that were made by a member of the committee who has had experience in Bar examinations that I want to get before you because I think they are of importance, I think of as much importance as he attaches to them. The present method of examination for admission to the Bar gives the examiner one day to hold an examination. Now, it takes too long for a man to write-the physical work of writing out those answers almost rules a man out. Longer time ought to be given, and it seems to me the court could do that almost of its own motion. Another day ought to be given to the actual physical writing out of those answers. In other words, spread the examination over two days instead of one for that purpose, not increasing the number of subjects you are examining upon, but giving the applicant a better chance to make his answer. Another view, in which I heartily concur, is the increase in the general educational requirement. Another one is that, instead of having the examination papers marked over and examined and graded generally, that the percentage for each question ought to be given, or, in other words, that is only another way of saying that the examiner ought to give the reasons for his faith; he ought to put down on paper a reason why a man should pass or, in his judgment, how he passes on each particular question. That is simply a matter of getting him to be specific in the reason why he would say a man had passed the examination.

Now, briefly, in respect to this matter of general educational requirement that a lawyer ought to have before he goes to practicing law. In the matter of this training of the intelligence that I spoke of, the technical side of it is only a part. His business training is of immense importance. Some men put it ahead of the mere technical training. There is a sort of impossible situation, that if we are going to have a man go ahead and get a college education and then take three years of law school work, he will never get any time to get any business experience and he will be so old when he comes to the practice of law that he cannot take a knock-down and come-back. We must have that chance. From the very nature of the law business, it is a knock-down, and you have got to take a knock-down, rebound and come back and take another one, and when you can do that you have acquired law business enough so that you can get into a solid business somewhere. A young man, unfortunately, cannot get that. That is

the difficult thing in telling a young man to go on to complete a college education. All of us would admit the benefit of a college education, and it is true generally, only in those exceptional cases of remarkable men that have made success in law notwithstanding the fact that they have no general book education, but it is unfortunate we do not have some way of measuring a man's general education other than the mere book education. If we did have it would be a very fortunate thing, and now, at the present time, if we should all agree in this room that a general educational requirement was a desirable thing and advancement was a desirable thing, the only way you and I could measure that, probably, would be by the way the schoolmaster measured us, by our knowledge of what was in the book. I know, from experience, that at the time when, under the regulation of our courts, I was permitted to determine a man's qualification for admission to the Bar on my judgment whether he would make good or not, I have frequently commended a number of men who had practically no school education in the sense of getting it at school and yet having the qualifications to make good, and a number of them are in honorable positions in this community at the present time who, if measured by mere scholastic learning, would get nowhere, would have had no chance. So it is unfortunate that when we say a man must have a general education the only way we can measure it is by book education. We are attempting to remedy it, if we can. There are a number of ways in contemplation, as by shortening the courses. Live educators are advocating the shortening of the general college courses. We are doing it in a number of schools by combining the law course with the general educational course so that a man will get out of the technical side of his training before he gets so old that he cannot do anything in the line of the "fight" side of his business. So I would say, and without reference now to anybody or anything or any pending legislation, it seems to me it would be better for us, as a Bar Association, to suspend the matter of pushing legislation forward in that regard until we get this report

The next order of business is the report of the Legislative Committee. Mr. Charles E. Shepard is not here, but his report is in the hands of the secretary.

REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.

The Secretary: Mr. President, Mr. Shepard's report is in the form of a personal letter to me. After addressing it, he says in part:

**

The Legislative Committee has no report to make except that none of the amendments proposed and approved at the 1912 meeting were enacted and as for other legislation, useful, harmful or neutral, it is contained in the volume of 1912 Session Laws consisting of 700 pages of text and 124 pages of index, to which the committee respectfully refers the members of the Bar and recommends its diligent perusal if they want to be up to date in the law.

Mr. President: We will now have an address by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Frederick W. Keator, of the Diocese of Olympia. It is rather unusual that lawyers should be addressed by a clergyman, but, in this instance, the clergyman is a lawyer and not only a lawyer but a mighty good lawyer, a mighty good clergyman, and a mighty good fellow. His subject will be, "Leadership the Real Need of the Times."

Bishop Keator: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the State Bar Association: (Reads paper. See Appendix.)

(Prolonged and continued applause.)

Mr. President: The report of the Committee on Judiciary and Judicial Administration, Mr. Ira P. Englehart.

Mr. Englehart: Mr. President, Gentlemen. A short time ago our committee was asked to make a report. I got in communication with the other members and they said to go ahead and make a report and it would be agreeable to them. Therefore, this report is really mine. (Reads report.)

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.

Some complaint has been made of the delay in litigation in this state caused by the courts and our legal procedure. Personally, I do not think there is much to this charge. It is true some judges on the