Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/621

 Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association of this act is to abolish common law mar riages. The consideration of the bill was not ﬁnished until Saturday afternoon, when the committee of the whole recommended that the bill, with its various amendments, be re

ferred back to the committee to report the same in printed form to the next meeting of the Conference in 1911; and it was so ordered. The Conference then resumed consideration of the Business Corporation Bill, which was continued into the session of August 29, and, after twenty sections of the full thirty-ﬁve had been adopted, with various amendments, was referred back to the committee, to report at the next meeting in 1911. COMPARATIVE LAW BUREAU The annual meeting of the Comparative Law Bureau was held on August 29. The most interesting feature of the occasion was the annual address of the Director, Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin of Connecticut, in which he reviewed at length the comparative law developments disclosed during the past year. In opening his address he made extended reference to the progress made in determining

rules of aerial navigation. Turning from the subject of aviation, Judge Baldwin referred to the critical comments on

the judicial organization of the United States as described in a work which has appeared during the last year from the Paris press by Prof.

Alfred

Nerinc, of the

University of

Louvain. The comments of Prof. Nerinc are somewhat unfavorable to the American courts. Judge Baldwin regarded this critic ism as being well founded, although possibly exaggerated owing to the fact that the author did not have an opportunity to study the courts for a longer period of time. The Committee on the Translation of the Laws of the Insular Possessions reported itself opposed to retranslation, in view of the fact that the Philippine legislature at its last session had passed an act creatinga code commission. The election of officers of the Bureau re sulted in the choice of the following persons as officers for the ensuing year: Director, Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin of Connecticut; secretary, William W. Smithers of Pennsylvania; trea surer, Eugene C. Massie of Virginia; managers, Frederick W. Lehmann of Missouri; Andrew A. Bruce of North Dakota; William Draper Lewis of Pennsylvania; Roscoe Pound of Massa chusetts, and John H. Wigmore of Illinois.

591

ASSOCIATION OF A M E R I C A N LAW SCHOOLS The tenth annual meeting of the Associa tion of American Law Schools was held at Chattanooga, August 29 and 30. The meet ing was opened by John C. Townes, Dean of the University of Texas Law School and president of the Association, who read a paper on the "Organization and Operation of a Law School.“ An informal discussion of the president's paper was led by Dean Irvine of Cornell Law School, and Dean Lorenzen of George Washington Law School. On the much dis cussed question of the relative merits of the lecture system and the case system of teach ing law, the speakers were agreed that the main difference between the two systems was one of emphasis, i.e., whether the emphasis be placed on the principle of law or on the case illustrating its application. The principal paper of the meeting was read by Dr. William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, whose subject was "The Honor System as a Means of Assuring Integrity of Examinations in Law Schools." Dr. Lewis admitted that the honor system was effective in some institutions, par ticularly the University of Virginia, but he believed that its usefulness depended largely on local conditions. He said that the system had been tried at Pennsylvania and had been abandoned because conditions there were not favorable to its success. He added that the system was not adaptable to a student body drawn largely from a commercial civilization. The second meeting was devoted to a dis cussion of the subject of Dr. Lewis's paper. Dean Lyle of the University of Virginia, read an excellent paper on the origin, develop ment and operation of the honor system at Virginia, in which he placed particular empha sis on the value of the system in developing in the law student that sense of honor and responsibility so essential to an honorable career as a practising lawyer. The consensus of opinion expressed in the discussion was in accord with Dr. Lewis's conclusion that the successful operation of the honor system de pended on local conditions, and could not be expected to be equally effective in diﬁ'erent institutions. Prof. W. R. Vance of Yale was elected president of the Association for the ensuing year.