remedies in the circuit courts. I do that merely because objection has been made to one feature and no objection has been made to the other features.

THE PRESIDENT-The question then is on the amendment, that we adopt and recommend so much of the report—all of the report, except that dealing with the question of the union of the legal and equitable branches in the federal courts.

Upon the vote being taken, the chair announced that the amendment had carried.

The chair stated the motion as amended.

JUDGE HOYT As I understand it, the vote now is to be on the question of sending to congress this report, after it has been relieved of everything that is in the province of congress.

You have

refused to adopt the report of the committee as to the equity and civil sides of the United States courts. Now, the question occurs on the sending of the report as adopted, after leaving everything out as to the United States courts. It seems to me that the motion should be voted down.

THE PRESIDENT-The question now is as to sending copies of the report to our representatives in congress..

MR. THOMPSON —I rise to a point of order. As I understand it, the situation is this: An amendment has just been adopted and that limited the scope of the original proposition. The adoption of the amendment does not adopt the motion, but simply tacks that amendment on to the question and the question as amended would come now before the house for adoption, and the question would be, as I understand it, whether we shall adopt the committee's report as amended and transfer to our members in congress copies of the report as amended.

MR. HUMPHRIES-I am inclined to that view, that the motion as amended will destroy the effect that we intended to produce by sending the report, and while I am the mover of the motion, I shall have to vote against it as amended.

THE PRESIDENT-I am disposed to give you all an opportunity to vote against it.

Upon the motion being stated and voted upon, the chair announced that the report of the committee had been adopted in all

respects save that which referred to the union of the two remedies.

JUDGE HOYT—I move that that part of the report not adopted and which relates to procedure in the federal courts be referred to a special committee of three members, to be appointed by the chair. Motion seconded and carried.

MR. SHACKLEFORD-I would like to inquire of Mr. Crowley whether the bills introduced in congress in regard to the method of procedure in the federal courts contemplate any interference with the admiralty practice as it now stands.

MR. CROWLEY-I am not able to answer that. The bills, as I have received copies of them, are very general in their character; they simply start out with the statement that all forms of procedure shall be brought in accordance with the court system; that is, one form of action in which legal and equitable remedies may be administered. They leave a wide discretion in the courts to regulate the practice by means of rules, in accordance with the English system of procedure. The courts are allowed almost unlimited power in the shape of regulating the method of transacting the business and governing the procedure. The statements in the bill are all very general in character.

THE PRESIDENT - The chair appoints upon the committee Mr. D. J. Crowley, of Tacoma, Will H. Thompson, of Seattle, and John A. Shackleford, of Tacoma.

No further business appearing, the association adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock A. M., July 22, 1897.

SECOND DAY.

SEATTLE, July 22, 1897, 10 o'clock A. M. Association met pursuant to adjournment, President Preston in the chair.

W. H. Pritchard then read before the Association his paper on the subject, "Policy and Practical Effect of Usury Law." (See Appendix.)

MR. FORSTER-I may not be here at the time when the matter of the place for the next meeting of the Association will come up, and I, therefore, in behalf of Spokane county bar, desire to invite the Association to meet in Spokane next year, a year from this time. I do not expect this to be acted upon at this time, but we will say to you that we will be very glad to have you meet in Spokane, and we will do the best we can by you should you decide, when the matter comes before the meeting, to accept our invitation.

THE PRESIDENT-The next order of business is the report of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, which committee is composed of the following members of the Association: James B. Howe, of Seattle, chairman; W. J. C. Wakefield, of Spokane; W. C. Sharpstein, of Tacoma, and Milo A. Root, of Olympia, now Seattle.

Mr. Howe, chairman of the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, submitted the following report:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR.

Mr. President:

The Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar respectfully beg leave to report: Since the last meeting of this Association the legislature of this state has, by an act approved February 16, 1897, repealed a provision of the act of 1895, relating to the admission of attorneys and counselors to the bar, which to many members of the bar appeared not only an absurdity, but also an indication of a fear of competition, which we do not believe any considerable portion of the bar

entertained. We refer to the repeal of that provision of the act of 1895 requiring attorneys coming from other states to pass an examination in this state as a prerequisite to admission to the bar here. At one of the examinations held under the act of 1895, the spectacle was presented of an ex-justice of the supreme court of a sister state being required to answer questions prepared to test students possessing an acquaintance with only the most elementary principles of law. Had the applicant been the chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, he would have been required to submit to the same examination. It is needless to say that the repeal of such a provision was, in the opinion of your committee, a wise act of legislation. The question, however, arises whether it would not be wise to require an attorney coming from another state and seeking to be admitted here on a certificate from another state, without examination, to show that he has been a practicing attorney at the bar of the supreme court of the state from whence he comes for at least one year. If there is no such requirement, an incompetent applicant for admission to the bar of this state will apply for admission in a state where the standard is low, and upon receiving a certificate there, use it for the purpose of obtaining admission here

It is true that a year's standing at the bar will not make a lawyer of one who was not competent at the date of his admission, but the cases will be comparatively few where men who have been practicing attorneys for a year at the bar of a supreme court are not competent to be admitted in any state. The presumption certainly is that they are competent.

The rule of the supreme court of the United States on the subject is as follows: "It shall be prerequisite to the admission of attorneys or counselors to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the supreme courts of the state to which they belong, and that their private and professional character shall be fair."

We think it would be well if in this state we had a law somewhat similar to this rule, but reducing the period from three to one, and requiringa certificate of good reputation from one of the judges of the court which issued the certificate on which the application for admission to the bar of this state is based. In our opinion, the legal examination which candidates for admission to the bar of this state are now required to pass is sufficiently rigid, and there is no necessity for raising the standard of legal knowledge until the standard of general education for admission to the bar has been raised. In view of the great difference of opinion recently expressed by such eminent judges as the present chief justice of England on the one hand and Mr. Justice Holmes, of the supreme court of Massachusetts, on the other, as to the education requisite to make a successful lawyer, it may be said that no general rule can be laid down; but we think it clearly appears from their opinions that there is one indispensable requisite to the making of a respectable lawyer, and that is, a good English education. Such an education ought to be required, and by the

test of an examination it ought to be demonstrated that the requirement has been met before a license to practice law should be granted.

The legal profession has always been classed and considered as a learned profession. It undoubtedly has deserved, and does as a whole deserve, such a characterization. We do not think a college education indispensable, although it is certainly a valuable preparation for the bar. We believe that every applicant for admission to the bar should, in addition to his examination on legal branches, be required to pass an examination in grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, geography, orthography and American history. The examination should not be technical, but should be of such a character as to show that the applicant has a proper conception of these branches. We believe that every lawyer ought to be a man of learning, and that this Association should encourage a higher standard in that direction.

We understand that in the State of New York no one can be admitted to the bar until he has by examination secured a regent's certificate. This means practically that he must have an academic education. The test is probably about the same as is required here to secure a first grade certificate to teach school. We think a similar test is not too severe to be applied to one seeking admission to the bar.

It is the hope of this committee that the time is not far distant when there can be established at the university of this state a department of law. We do not, however, believe that such a step should be taken until it is the intention of the state to make that department a first class law school. It might be well, even at this time, to appoint a committee to draft a bill to be presented to the next legislature for the establishment of a law school at the university. If such a school should be established, we believe that the diploma of that school should not be granted to any one until he has demonstrated that he possesses a good English education as well as the requisite knowledge of the law.

When compliance with these requirements shall have become a matter of course, there will be reason to hope that in this state the legal profession will not only become a learned profession, but ultimately, by a yearly raising of its standard of admission to the bar, a liberal one; that its ablest representatives will not be content to attain the standard by which Mr. Justice Holmes measures the successful lawyer, but will strive to reach the higher standard prescribed by the lord chief justice of England, the standard of the jurist and the scholar. Respectfully submitted.

JAMES B. HOWE,
Chairman.

THE PRESIDENT· -What is the pleasure of the Association as to this report?

MR. JONES-I do not want to take up any time in the discussion of this report, but suggest that a committee be appointed to draft