Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/210

 American Law ScJiools. dent's mind is sufficiently matured and his previous preparation adequate, I believe it to be the concensus of the best opinion that he can be most successful1;,- taught by means of cases. The great majority of law stu dents, however, especially those just begin ning the work in the law school, have not received the benefits of that preliminary mental discipline which is essential to an understanding of the involved language and legal terminology contained in the average judicial opinion, and instruction to these stu dents must be given in a way which they may be able to comprehend more readily. Hence, it may be doubtful whether during the early portion of the course in those law schools which are not entirely or even chiefly made up of students who have received a college education, the exclusive use of cases as a means of teaching law is altogether practic able. Perhaps it may be true that even among advanced students all subjects in the curriculum can not be as successfully im parted by the use of the pure case method as it might be otherwise. I believe, however, that much of the ob jection to the case .system, as a whole, is largely due to an imperfect understanding of what is really meant by the term. Some people seem to entertain the notion that the use of the case system implies the exclusion of every other avenue of investigation and every other means of demonstration than that of discovering and discussing the points involved in the decisions contained in the case book. They insist that the student of pure case law is too often required to cudgel his brain by wading through a mass of in comprehensible stuff found in some old English case, perhaps, the sole object of which is that he may be able to repro duce the substance of it in the class, where he will receive more or less assistance from his instructor to enable him to fathom its contents. Of course, if this is what is

167

meant by the case method of instruction, its opponents are clearly justified in their ob jections to it. The study of judicial opinions without other aid, such as lectures, collateral reading of text-books and of other decisions of the courts, would be fully as unsatisfactory as was the old method of teaching law ex clusively by the sole means of recitations or lectures read from manuscript. To take up a case in class and simply find in it the point or points which it decides, accomplishes only a minimum part of the benefits which the friends of the system claim for it. The truth is, there are as many different case methods as there are instructors who teach by means of cases. This fact was firmly impressed up on me while attending the different classes in Harvard and the other law schools I visited. One professor who has a strong predilection for extemporaneous exposition uses the system largely as a means of illus trating the points in his lectures. He does not confine himself to the cases assigned for study, but makes frequent reference to other decisions and text-books which either sup port or oppose the ruling of the case or the point in dispute, or treat of it in any manner. This instructor does not insist so strongly upon a minute recital of the facts of the case reported on by the student as others do, and while inviting discussion on the part of the students, seems inclined to do more lec turing, which, however, is always interesting and instructive. Another teacher does the greater portion of his work in the class room by asking questions and seems to suc ceed in obtaining a large variety of an swers, which generally lead to satisfac tory conclusions. Often the same student is called upon to report as many as two or more cases of the number assigned to the class, and is required to state his im pressions as to the agreement or conflict be tween them, whether the one may be dis