Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 01.pdf/28

Rh The elaborate system for acquiring a knowledge of our law, which prevailed in England at the time of the settlement of the Colonies, and which Lord Coke has so graphically described in his preface to the Third Reports, fell into disuse there soon after his time. In America nothing similar ever existed. There was little need of lawyers in the early days of American life, when the barrister was apt to be regarded as a barrator. But during the movement which culminated in the independence of the Colonies the law became more and more a subject of general interest. Already before the Revolution, Blackstone was found, it is said, side by side with the Bible in the houses of laymen. With a growing respect for the knowledge of the law, the lawyers grew rapidly in number and importance. Still, no means had been provided of training the aspirant for the bar. Here, as in England, the student learned what he could by reading and re-reading the few text-books then existing, by listening to the conversation of lawyers, and by watching the proceedings of the courts. After his admission to the bar, the young lawyer doubtless learned, as he does now, by that most expensive method of instruction,—his own mistakes.

Professor Greenleaf describes the method of study which he and Judge Story pursued as follows: "We both commenced the study of the law many years since, amidst the drudgery and interruptions of the lawyer's office, perusing with what diligence we could our Blackstone, Coke, and other books put into our hands." This sort of legal training, which may have been adequate at a time when the scope of the common law was narrow and the reported cases comparatively few, naturally proved itself inefficient when the commercial development of England and America brought with it a corresponding increase in legal principles and in litigation. The inadequacy of such training was particularly obvious in the United States, where the varying decisions rendered in the different States—grafted as they were upon the English stock—had resulted frequently in a less homogeneous development of the law. The evils of the existing means of legal education being greater in America and the conservative force of tradition less, it is natural that the reform should have been inaugurated here. Even prior to the organization of the Harvard Law School in 1817, systematic instruction in the common law had been given in America. A professorship in English law is said to have been established at William and Mary College in Virginia as early as 1782. In 1790 a law professorship was established in the College of Philadelphia, and James Wilson—one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States—was appointed the first professor. Judge Wilson prepared a series of lectures designed to cover three courses. The first was delivered in the winter of 1790-1791, and a part of the second course was delivered the following winter. In April, 1792, the College of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania were united under the name of the latter; a law professorship was created in the new university, and Judge Wilson was appointed to fill the chair; but for some reason no lectures on law were delivered there for many years. Judge Wilson's law lectures were published in 1804—after his death. These early professorships cannot be considered as in any sense establishing law schools or separate departments of universities. Besides, like the law schools at Litchfield, Conn., and Northampton, Mass., — the early competitors of the Harvard Law School, — they were soon abandoned.

The school at Litchfield, which was the first regular school for instruction in the English law, was founded by Tapping Reeve, author of the treatise on "Domestic Relations." When, in 1798, Mr. Reeve was appointed Associate Justice of the Superior Court of Connecticut (of which bench he subsequently became Chief Justice), Hon. James Gould, author of the work on "Pleading in Civil Actions," took an active part in