The Editor's Bag our federal Chief Justices ever took a law school degree, and of the present Supreme Court bench "only Justices Holmes and Brewer could comply with the standard for ad mission that now seems to appeal to the lawyers." Many of America's greatest lawyers, Marshall included, were self-educated. It is not the length of time spent in preparation, but the quality of the preparation, that is the essential thing. Four years of preliminary study are certainly better than three, but it by no means follows that three years, under the right sort of regimen, may not prove adequate for the turning out of worthy candidates for the bar. The case book method and the text book method of teaching law alike have the defects of their qualities. It is un desirable that the law should be learned by rote, simply because it can be more quickly mastered by a process which does not cultivate the powers of legal reasoning and independent research; it is likewise disadvantageous to "plunge" a student into the "chaos" of adjudged cases, in the language of the late Edward J. Phelps, "to grope his way through it as best he may," with the object of supplying him in that manner with adequate preparation for the practical requirements of his profession. We be lieve that each method needs to be supplemented, to some extent, by the other. The student needs to organize and strengthen the knowledge gained by the case method by studying the great treatises and the common-law codes. The value of the latter, we be lieve, has been pretty generally under rated. While the dean of the New York Law School goes too far in asserting a regular two-year course to be best, the American Bar Association's four-year period goes to the other extreme. Three
537
years of study should for the average student be sufficient.
MR. BERNARD SHAW POSES AS A COMMONPLACE PERSON WHETHER Mr. George Bernard Shaw wrote his latest play to help on the reform of criminal procedure is exceedingly doubtful. But according to the London Law Times, the scene of "The Showing Up of Blanco Posnet," which was produced in Dublin Aug. 25, after being refused a license by the censor in London, is really a study in jurisprudence :— "The scene is laid in the 'Town Hall' of a western town in the United States, and the incidents centre round the trial of Blanco Pos net for the theft of a horse—the most heinous crime, in the eyes of the community, of which a man could be guilty. The 'trial' is con ducted by the sheriff, who is assisted by a jury of twelve lynchers, and a length of rope with a noose at the end of it has a prominent place in the proceedings. The play presents an interesting picture of the administration of justice by a wholly uncivilized community, which possesses the vaguest ideas concerning criminal procedure and the law of evidence. Mr. Shaw shows up with infinite subtlety the crude beginnings of our modern system of criminal law and procedure, with all those checks and safeguards which thoughtless per sons are so fond of decrying. The author's representation of 'rough justice' or 'the un written law' in action is instructive, though not alluring. The sheriff, with sarcastic refer ence to the system of law that he is administer ing, declares that 'it would be more seemly to have a witness.' The prisoner challenges the jury, and he is called upon to give his reasons. 'I challenge it on the general ground that it is a rotten jury.' The prisoner then is told that if he does not like the jury, he 'should have stolen a horse in some other town,' and then the trial proceeds. The whole play in volves a compliment to modern law and the methods of lawyers thatjperhaps Mr. Shaw did not intend." The play, we would judge, confirms the impression of Mr. Shaw as a man
