Love is noted, in the trial of cases, for the directness with which he reaches the merits and solves, on principle, the legal questions involved. He is a patient listener, but those who most effectually reach him in argument rely upon well-grounded reasoning rather than mere accumulation of authorities. The same zeal in searching for the reason of the law characterizes his teaching, which is mainly by lecture in the form of an oral exposition of fundamental doctrines. This course of instruction in such important subjects as Contracts, Bills and Notes, Sales, Evidence, etc., is found to be an excellent preparation for the details of a full text-book on the topic. To the students, Judge Love is greatly endeared by reason of his simplicity of manner, integrity of character, and kindness of heart.
John N. Rogers was in 1875 appointed to the lectureship on Constitutional Limitations. Coming from New York with a good collegiate and legal education, he had taken rank among the ablest lawyers in the State, having perhaps as wide a reputation, and being called into as many intricate and important cases as any lawyer who has ever practised at its bar. The clearness of analysis and conciseness of statement which made his legal arguments in court models of their kind gave great value to the short course of lectures which he annually delivered. He was too much absorbed in his profession to be prominently in the public mind for any office, even a judicial one; but, in 1886, a change was made in the method of electing judges, in pursuance of which three were to be elected in his district; and by a combination among those who believed in a non-partisan judiciary, he was elected one of the three, though in politics opposed to the dominant party in the district in which he was elected. He lived but a short time to perform the functions of his office. With the exception of Judge Rogers, all those who have ever been connected with the School in any way as instructors, during the quarter century of its existence, are still in active life.
Austin Adams came from Vermont to Iowa as a young man, after having received a New England collegiate education (at Amherst), and a partial course in law at Harvard, under the instruction of Parker, Parsons, and Washburn. Having achieved an eminent position at the bar, he became, in 1876, a judge of the Supreme Court. About the same time he accepted a lectureship in the law department, which he still holds. In 1888, he retired from the bench to active practice. Judge Adams' method as a lecturer is to make prominent by pertinent illustrations, often homely or humorous, the most salient points of his subject, confining himself to what is elementary, leaving details to be filled in by subsequent reading. While not considering this the best method for all subjects, he thinks it the best for those topics which he can treat in a short course; and the interest with which the students listen to him, and the satisfaction they find in his instruction, indicate the correctness of his judgment.
Lewis W. Ross came, a young man, from Ohio, after the completion of his college course and entered upon the practice of law in Western Iowa, at a time when that part of the State was still new. As one of the trustees of the University at the time the law department was organized, and a member of the committee by whom the plan for the removal of the Iowa Law School to Iowa City, was matured and carried out, he had from the first a deep interest in the School and an intimate acquaintance with its workings. In 1879, he was made lecturer on the Law of Real Property and, in 1880, accepted a full professorship, removing to Iowa City in order to give his entire time to the work. When Dr. Hammond severed his connection with the Department in 1881, Professor Ross was selected to succeed in the Chancellorship which he held until 1887, when he returned to active practice. Few men have given to the School such pains taking and laborious services or had a larger part, during their connection with the School,
