« ZurückWeiter »
iz is proposed to change our law as to pleading, but we ventura to say that it is not entirely perfect.
When a declaration is filed the defendant is required to answer it paragraph by paragraph, and a demurrer to the declaration or objection to the answer is to be disposed of during the first term; but when the declaration is amended, how and when is it to be answered, and when is the sufficiency of the amendment or answer thereto to be determined ? Suppose the amendment to the declaration, which often contains the real statement of plaintiff's complaint, is not answered at all, are the allegations of the amendment to be taken as admitted ? We believe it should be so held under the law as it .is, but it has not been so ruled and it would be well to set all doubt upon the subject at rest by so providing. Respectfully submitted.
HENRY C. PEEPLES,
Of the Committee.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCA-
TION AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR.
It needs hardly be contended before a body of Georgia lawyers that a thorough education is essential to the highest attainments in the legal profession; nor that the greatest efficiency and usefulness as a successful lawyer comes mainly to those possessing in the highest degree a thorough preparation for this great vocation. And while the question in hand is confined mainly to "legal education," it presupposes a reasonable amount of academic English scholar-, ship. The highest success can rarely be reached in this or any other profession without the foundation being well laid. How many bright legal minds have been outstripped in the race for success by a lack of early training and preparation, is within the observation of every well-informed lawyer. Otherwise great lawyers have failed of that success they would have achieved, but for this deficiency. No lawyer can ever attain eminence in the profession whose education in the English language is so deficient as to cause him in a prosecuting speech to a jury to thus address them: “Gentlemen of the jury, a grave crime have been commit; a innocent man have been slain.” And yet such language has been heard in at least one court-house in this State. Of course this is a rare exception and an extreme case, but under our law controlling admissions:
to the bar, it should be impossible for even one applicant with such a deficient English education to receive a license to practice law in the courts of the country. Our students of law should be more proficient in a knowledge of the English language, and they will then be better prepared to study and master the intricate questions of the law, and become shining examples of its great principles and teachings. Let them study the English language more. Rightly and appropriately it is called the "King's English.” It is indeed a regal language. It was the language in which Mansfield and Marshall and Madison wrote. When it streams from the pen of a Lumpkin it seems distilled from the life of the muses. Or from the lyre of a Nisbet it becomes pregnant with the majestic harmony of the deep-toned organ, or the exquisite melody of the Dorian lute. In the hands of a Bleckley it becomes a fit vehicle for the flow of the richest humor—flashes of the most brilliant wit
—the sublimest expositions of the law. The judges of our highest courts are not free from criticism on account of the use of faulty English. In a recent law journal Justices ........... of the Supreme Court of the United States are gently criticized for the frequent use of the "split infinitive” in their otherwise well-considered opinions. A few specimens of infinitives "split” by distinguished judges may not be out of place: “When Congress sees fit to further promote.” 180 U. S. 495. (Justice Shiras). “A conspiracy to wrongfully deprive,” 171 U. S. 620. (Justice Peckham). "The obligations of the ship to properly deliver the cargo,” and “such changes * * * as to seriously impair,” etc., 170 U. S. 278. (Justice Brown). “An Act of Congress alleged to unconstitutionally affect.” 127 U. S. 296. (Justice Gray), and "Not necessary to here mention.” 36 Fed. Rep. 133. (Judge Hammond).
It is true that every scholar may not become a lawyer, but it 12 g ba
is equally true that he will never become great as a lawyer unless he is familiar with the "mother tongue”; and above all, he can never be a great lawyer unless he studies and knows the fundamental principles of the law. It has often been said that “The law is a jealous mistress and never allows lukewarm lovers to approach her throne.” I can not assent to the proposition as enunciated by a learned judge of the superior court when a poorly prepared applicant presented himself for admission to the bar, that he would license him on the idea that if he knew no law, he could do no harm. The very idea is monstrous. He can do incalculable injury. To subject an unsuspecting and confiding client, whose life, liberty or property is at stake, to the mercy and ignorance of one who, like necessity, “knows no law,” is shocking to the moral and intellectual sense. No less an authority than Blackstone (and I can not do better than quote at some length from this great writer) has said: “What the consequences may be, to have the interpretation and enforcement of the laws (which includes the entire disposal of our properties, liberties and lives) fall wholly into the hands of obscure or illiterate men, is a matter of very public concern.” And advocating a more liberal academic education, the same great author declares “that a science which distinguishes the criterions of right and wrong; which teaches to establish the one, and prevent, punish, or redress the other; which employs in its theory the noblest faculty of the soul, and exerts in its practice the cardinal virtues of the heart; a science which is universal in its use and extent, accommodated to each individual, yet comprehending the whole community; that a science like this should ever have been deemed unnecessary to be studied in an university, is a matter of astonishment and concern. Surely, if it were not before an object of academical knowledge, it was high time to
make it one. * * * * * * * *
* I think it past dispute that
* those gentlemen who resort to the inns of court with a view to pursue the profession, will find it expedient, whenever it is practicable, to lay the foundations of this, as well as every other science, in one of our learned universities. We may appeal to the experience of every sensible lawyer, whether anything can be more hazardous or discouraging than the usual entrance on the study of the law. A raw and inexperienced youth, in the most dangerous season of life, is transplanted on a sudden into the midst of allurements to pleasure, without any restraint or check but what his own prudence can suggest. * *** In this situation he is expected to sequester himself from the world, and by a tedious, lonely process, to extract the theory of the law from a mass of undigested learning; or else, by an assiduous attendance on the courts, to pick up theory and practice together, sufficient to qualify him for the ordinary run of business. How little, therefore, is it to be wondered at, that we hear of so frequent miscarriages. Experience may teach us to foretell that a lawyer, thus educated to the bar (that is) in subservience to attorneys and solicitors, will find he has begun at the wrong end. If practice is the whole he is taught, practice must also be the whole he will ever know; if he be uninstructed in the elements and first principles upon which the rule of practice is founded, the least variation from established precedents will totally distract and bewilder him.” We fear that the retort of the physician to the lawyer may sometimes have a foundation. The lawyer was twitting the doctor upon the mistakes of his profession, but added, “Your mistakes are usually six feet under ground.” Whereupon the doctor retorted, “And yours are six feet above ground.” Whether this jest carries any truth with it or not, the possibility of mistakes by the profession should be reduced