STANDARDS FOR ADMISSION
Much of the discussion with respect to the raising of standards for admission to the Bar seems, to us, to lose sight of certain very important elements as a rule. Is not the old saying that the exception proves the rule verified by the opponents of college training as a preliminary to legal education with every name that rolls from their lips?
We believe it to be quite within the bounds of reason and fact to state that about ninety per cent of those who have in the past engaged, and may be expected in the future to engage, in the practice of the legal profession are not of the class of exceptional men usually cited in the discussions.
The exceptional man frequently rises higher with little or no preliminary training than the average man does with the best of training; he finds his economics, his history, his philosophy, his science under circumstances and conditions that would leave no impression in the mental mechanism of the average man. But the average man is the one who serves and must continue to serve the larger number of our communities and the vast majority of our people; and if he, the average man, is to be fitted for the task of leadership, which is the real task of every practicing lawyer, then he ought to have the preliminary training that will fit him for the performance of that task. Moreover, the people of the community with which he may cast his lot by hanging out a shingle want and are entitled to find in him something more than a mere advocate with sufficient knowledge of law to enable him to win verdicts.
No boy today need fear that the adoption of such standards would prevent him from entering this as his chosen profession. We speak from experience when we say that all he needs is ambition and a willingness to work
U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
(From Amer. Bar Assn. Journal)
A prohibition agent has power to serve a search warrant although not a civil officer in the constitutional sense.—Steele vs. U. S., Sup. Ct. Rep. 45, 417.
Incidental to its power to enforce prohibition, Congress may regulate the manufacture and distribution of denatured alcohol.—Selzman vs. U.S., Sup. Ct. Rep. 45, 574.
The attempt to cut a defective car out of a train after it has been run onto a siding for that purpose is a movement of the car within the meaning of the Safety Appliance Act.—Chicago, Great Western vs. Schendel, Sup. Ct. Rep. 45, 303.
