Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/383

 348

The Green Bag

way of argument, that these two great laws point to the desirability of the teaching, in law schools, of the law of the jurisdiction in its connection with the common law of the past as well as in its relation to the law of neighboring jurisdictions. The subject-matter of law school teaching is the law, of course; the common law not merely as it existed once, but also and more especially as it is applicable to the condition of our own times and as it is actually so applied in our courts today. There is indeed no common law in force in any state other than such as has been or will be held applicable to existing conditions of American society. To teach the common law, then, necessarily and everywhere involves the teaching of the law of the jurisdiction, its history, origin and development, as well as its actual condition at the present time. The law of the jurisdiction may be neglected, but it cannot be, and is not, wholly ignored anywhere, not even by law schools that profess not to teach what is inaccurately and somewhat d'srespectfully called the local law. There is no possible defini tion of the common law as a living force in the United States that could reason ably exclude from its scope the law of the jurisdiction. What the history of the race and the nature of our institu tions have united cannot be severed in the classroom. This union existing be tween the common law and the law of the jurisdiction is a natural growth and a logical necessity. It is in the nature of things. To teach the common law, then, is to teach the law of the juris diction. Apart from the logical impossibility of severing the law of the jurisdiction from the common law, there is a political necessity for teaching the law of the jurisdiction affecting state university

law schools more powerfully than law schools based on private foundations. The state university law school can not, and will not, oppose the will of its creator, the State, the sovereign people, as laid down by the great law of public opinion. By its very being it is bound to be the servant of the people, and must, therefore, of necessity, teach the home law as that part of the common law that has been found applicable to the past and present conditions of the state. Whatever the state university law schools may do or may fail to do, this essential part of the common law, the law of the jurisdiction, the home law, must be taught. There is no choice; but where the reason of things and the will of the people coincide the path of duty is plain, and the watchword is, Forward. In this life of ours, however, wisdom and true necessity are often synonymous terms. Thus it is that the teaching of the law of the jurisdiction as part of the common law is the duty of the state university law schools not merely from logical and political necessities that im pose themselves, but also for reasons that persuade and convince. In a very emphatic sense the teaching of the law of the jurisdiction develops the legal, the judicial, and the civic mind, and tends to form, in a pre-eminent degree, the lawyer, the judge, and the citizen. But, from the standpoint of the univer sity law school, the greatest of these is the citizen, the man. The teaching of the law of the juris diction, of the law right at hand, appeals to the student's mind very much more powerfully than any other law else where, far away, and high above him. Whether naturally quick or slow, a mind, to be called a legal mind, must be able to grasp facts and principles both, and hold them fast. Attention