Transcription of the Northwestern University Bulletin, 1922
NORTHWESTERN
University Bulletin
Vol. XXIII August 26, 1922 No. 8
Northwestern University Bulletin is published weekly during the academic year at Chicago, Illinois. Entered as Second Class Matter November 21, 1913, at the Post-office at Chicago, Illinois, under Act of Congress of August 24, 1912. Accepted for mailing at special rates of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on June 14, 1918.
Published by Northwestern University, Northwestern University Bldg., Chicago
LAW SCHOOL
Owing to the absence of the Dean of the Law School on national service no reports were printed for 1917-18 and 1918-19. The following extracts from these reports are here printed as of special interest.
Reprinted November 1922, for distribution to Alumni of the Law School
From the Report of the Dean of the Law School, 1917-18.
- The effect of the war was seen in the depletion of the numbers of faculty and students, and in the postponement of the new rules for entrance, as already noted.
The spirit of the School was enthusiastically loyal to the Great Cause of the War. Nearly every student made effort to enter the Officers Training Camps of May and August, 1917, and large numbers were accepted. Many of those who had not the good fortune to enter the Officers’ Camp of May, 1917, took prompter measures in their impatience, to get to the battlefields of France, and entered the Ambulance Corps Units that were going over immediately, or enlisted as privates in the Regular Army or the Marine Corps.
The total numbers in military service, as far as ascertainable, were as follows, shown to Law School status, and according to branches of service :
(a) BY LAW SCHOOL STATUS
Faculty members …………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Alumni ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 186
Students:
Class of 1917 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 51
Class of 1918 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 61
Class of 1919 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Special …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Class of 1920 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 20
179
365
(b) BY BRANCHES AND RANKS OF SERVICE
United States Army:
Colonels ……………………………………………………..…………………………………. 5
Lieutenant-Colonels ………………………………………………………………………. 2
Majors …………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Captains ………………………………………………………………………………………. 30
First Lieutenants ………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Second Lieutenants ……………………………………………………………………… 66
RegimentaI Sergeant Majors………………………………………………………….. 2
Battalion Sergeant Majors …………………………………….………………….……. 1
Sergeants …………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Candidate Officers ……………………………………………………………………….. 21
Corporals …………………………………………………………………………..………… 13
M. R. C. Orderlies ………………………………………………………………….….…… 5
Privates …………………………………………..…………………………………………… 52
273
Aviation Branch U. S. A. :
First Lieutenants …………………………………………………………….…………….. 2
Second Lieutenants ……………………………………….……………………………. 15
Ground School Cadets …………………………………………….……………………. 4
Non-Flying Section …………………………………………..…..……….………………. 4
Instructor ……………………………………………………………………..……………….. 1
26
United States Navy:
Lieutenant Commander …………………………………………………..…………… 1
Lieutenant S. G. ……………………………………………………..….……..………….. 4
Lieutenant J. G. ………………………………………………………..…………………… 1
Aviation Service ………………………………………………………….…..……………. 5
Ensigns ……………………………………………………………………….……..……..….17
Yeomen ……………………………………………………………………..…..…….………. 6
Seamen ………………………………………………………………….…….………………13
Musicians ………………………………………………………….………..…….…………. 3
50
50
United States Marines :
First Lieutenant ……………………………………………………………………………. 1
Second Lieutenants ……………………………………………………..……………… 2
Sergeant ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Aviation …………………………………………………………………….………..……….. 1
Private ……………………………………………………………………………….……..…. 1
6
Y. M. C. Secretaries……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Ambulance Drivers ……………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Lieutenant French Army………………………………………………………………………… 1
Emergency Fleet Corporation………………………………………………………………… 1
Rank Unknown ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2
365
The distribution of these covers all services and ranks in the war forces. Data as to the whole number and the ranks finally reached are not yet completely available; but there were many promotions, and the numbers for the higher ranks, given in the above Table, are too low.
(c) The alumnae and women students in service were three in all, distributed as follows:
Signal Corps …………………………………………………………………………. 1
Ambulance Driver ………………………………………………………………… 1
Yeomanette …………………………………………………………………………. 1
At the initiative of Miss Ida M. Lawrie, ’17, the women students donated the sum required for obtaining a large service flag, bearing the service-stars for students and alumni; and this flag was displayed in the School premises during the continuance of the war.
(d) The deaths in service numbered eight.
The names of those who gave their lives will be suitably recorded in permanent manner in the new School Building:
Thomas C. Lyons, ’12 Martin L. Collins, ex. ’18
R. T. Munzer, ’14 Jasper J. Ffrench, ’14
F. P. Navigato, ’10 Benj. Wohl, ex. ’18
Lawrence Wolpert, ’17 A. R. Messelheiser, ’16
(e) The number of awards of merit to those in service has not yet been accurately ascertained. There were many wound-stripes; Capt. Frank S. Stratton, ’05, of the Cavalry, is said to have been the first American Cavalryman wounded in action.
- The Alumni News Letter, edited by Miss Mary E. Goodhue, of the office staff, was a unique feature of service to the men in camp and at the front. The well-known devotion of Miss Goodhue to the welfare of the student-body has ever commanded their unbounded confidence and admiration. Their personal letters kept her advised of all happenings amidst the stirring and novel events of their military experience. Seventeen issues were prepared, between August, 1917, and December, 1918, and were circulated in mimeograph to all in the service. The arrival of the News Letter was a cheering event in every quarter, from Camp Kearney to the Argonne; and its personal chronicles kept alive the Northwestern spirit in all branches of the service. To judge from the news items in the letters, Northwestern men were meeting each other constantly in every field of war activity.
This News Letter should be printed and sent to all alumni as a permanent memorial of Northwestern University Law School annals of the war. A donation for the purpose would be welcome.
- The Faculty contributed active war service in branches of work other than directly military. The Selective Service system was the natural field for professional legal skill, and all resident members offered their service in the selective draft boards and its auxiliary staffs. As members of legal advisory boards, their arduous service was highly valued. The American Protective Association, the Four-Minute Men, the American Red Cross, and other organizations also received active assistance in their Chicago branches from various members of the Faculty. Others joined the staff of the National Council of Defense, the United States Treasury, the United States Shipping Board, and other Bureaus in Washington.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WIGMORE, Dean.
From the Report of the Dean of the Law School 1918-19.
THE STUDENTS’ ARMY TRAINING CORPS
In the President’s Report for 1917-19, the following conclusions are given a place: ”It can scarcely be said that the Students’ Army Training Corps was a marked success from the point of view either of the Army or of the University. * * * The experiment, however, should not be condemned, as it grew out of a war necessity and was very hastily developed.”
- There is, however, a very different experience and conviction held by some members of the Faculty, and the University annals should bear record to that conviction also.
It may be summarized as follows:
The Students’ Army Training Corps was a complete success in producing two results vital to military and to civic interests, and it was invaluable in its contribution to three other important elements, viz. :
(1) From the military point of view of preserving the independence of our Nation, the S. A. T. C. provided a reservoir of more than 25,000 trained officer-material, necessary to officer the new 2,000,000 army which was to assist in the 1919 spring offensive, and impossible to provide so rapidly in any other way; and this result was precisely the one aimed at by the General Staff and the War Department Education Committee in organizing the Corps.
(2) From the civic point of view, viz., the preservation of the institutions of higher education, the S. A. T. C. saved more than 500 educational institutions from being disorganized by the second draft, which was due to take all men of ages 18-20 before June, 1919; had the Corps not been installed in those institutions, the faculties of the vast majority would have been disbanded by October, 1918, the revenues for the year would have been depleted, and more than half of the institutions would have become insolvent.
(3) From the point of view of the student-body, it saved nearly a year in the completion of the education of nearly 150,000 young men; for they would all have entered cantonments at some period between October, 1918, and June, 1919, and the suspended institutions would not have been ready to receive them again until September, 1919; whereas the net actual loss of time did not exceed three months for any of them, and the great majority lost no time at all.
(4) From the point of view, again, of student welfare, the three months of the Corps contributed a unique experience of discipline in education which could never have fallen to their lot otherwise; and this tradition will never lose its moral value in the lives of those who enjoyed the privilege.
(5) From the point of view of educational method, the contrast of military and civic methods, side by side, furnished a unique experience of great value; and American higher education can never cease to be thankful for the lessons to be drawn from that brief but emphatic experience.
In the first two features, therefore, viz., the assistance in assuring that military victory which saved the nation, and the assistance in rescuing the country’s universities and colleges from disastrous disruption, the Students’ Army Training Corps was a complete success. The first feature was the precise and only one aimed at by the War Department; that aim was achieved. The second feature, though not aimed at, was foreseen by all who understood the educational situation in the summer of 1918; the escape from disaster was so significant for the educational authorities that it can never be anything but the subject of thankfulness; and that escape was due solely to the organization of the Corps within the institutions .
The interference of the Corps with the normal college studies and customs was a trifling price to pay for these extraordinary benefits. Some such loss was a foregone conclusion; and any criticisms based upon it are, therefore, beside the point.
The imperfect operation of the Corps itself, in various details, large and small, is another matter, legitimately open to discussion. But the only matter of surprise here is that the Corps could have been organized and operated at all, under the circumstances. The time limit was so short that the actual measure of achievement is next to incredible.
The circumstances attending the Corps demonstrate this. But they are not known or appreciated in most University circles. As the Dean of this Law School, by virtue of membership in the War Department Committee on Education and Special Training, was in a position to know the inner circumstances, a brief summary of them is here worth while.
Summarized, the salient features of the situation were (1) that the new draft law, taking in the ages 18-20, and thus destined to send to camp virtually the entire body of able-bodied male college students between October, 1918, and June, 1919, was not enacted by Congress till August 30, 1918; (2) that this change from the status of voluntary enlistment to compulsory draft affected all the important and complex details of military organization; and (3) that, therefore, no plans could possibly be fixed, or even announced by the War Department, until the end of August, 1918; thus leaving only 30 days for effecting the organization of 140,000 students, with over 3,000 officers, at over 500 institutions, subject to 4,500 draft boards, including the arrangements for curriculum, finance, equipment, housing, discipline, induction, and mobilization.
The situation had begun to develop in March, 1918. By April, 1918, with the German drive begun, and the monthly shipment of American soldiers suddenly raised from 100,000 to 300,000, the prospect of new levies, probably 2,000,000 or more, loomed in the near future. The officers needed for the new levies would be at least 100,000. Nothing like that number was in sight as available, within the time limits, from ordinary cantonment training. Where could the deficit be made up? Where could 50,000 officer-material be found and trained in the elements?
Of course, reflection showed that there was one place, viz., the colleges. In the colleges was available housing and feeding; there on hand were teachers of mathematics and other needful subjects. What was lacking was military instruction and discipline; and this must be specially supplied in any event. It was, therefore, resolved to plan to use this source of supply. Estimating 100,000 as the minimum attendance and 200,000 as the maximum, for 1918-1919, and figuring on 25 per cent as the ratio of first-class material emerging therefrom, this would provide a reservoir of 25,000-50,000 officer-material,—a welcome amount, possibly enough to supply the pressing need.
But would the colleges agree to take part? There was every reason to suppose so. Several hundred colleges had applied for volunteer units immediately upon announcement of the original plan early in July. The young men of 18-20, not liable to draft, could enlist, and were already becoming restive. A military training, installed in the colleges as a reservoir for new officers, would attract them as volunteers. Two or three large universities were already armed camps of this sort, by volunteer efforts. Many other institutions had indicated their approval of the measure.
Accordingly, in May-June, plans were prepared by the Committee and approved by the General Staff.
But, meanwhile, in the rush of military events, it became plain to the military authorities that the Selective Service Act of 1917 would not produce the needed levies, unless the ages 21-30 were much enlarged. A bill to enlarge the ages was introduced in Congress in the first week of August.
But should the ages be extended downward to include ages 18-20? This would depend on the total number needed and the total probable yield from each age. The total number of men required was at least 2,000,000. The estimates of age-yields reached 2,300,000, if ages 18-20 were included, but not otherwise. The memorandum on this subject by the Chief of Staff was laid before the Secretary of War on July 28. 1The age limits were debated by Congress during August, and there was much opposition to the inclusion of the younger ages.
Upon Congress’ decision depended the whole plan of the Committee. No settlement was possible prior to that decision. Enlistment of men within draft ages had been prohibited already. Hence, if the 18-20 ages were included by Congress in the new law, all college students would be within the draft and liable to call before or by June, 1919. Therefore, either a special draft exemption must be provided for the college S. A. T. C., or its members must be inducted subject to the draft and as a part of the draft contingent. The first alternative was unthinkable; because both Congress and the War Department, correctly gauging public opinion, would never
- The calculations were drafted by the writer of this report.
consent to a privileged status for college students, relieving them from the normal incidence of the selective draft. The second alternative, however, would require an entire re-casting of the S. A. T. C. organization, which had been thus far planned on a volunteer basis, under the Act of 1917.
The political impossibility, above alluded to, of giving the college S. A. T. C. the usual draft exemption accorded to ordinary voluntary enlistments, has perhaps not been fully realized by college authorities, and has still a lesson for us. The widespread popular notion, constantly revealed in Congress and in high army circles also, was that the S. A. T. C. plans based on voluntary enlistment of men within draft ages, would import special privilege for the sons of rich men, putatively including many slackers. This popular notion of colleges as the pampered gathering-places of rich youths is very extensive, and very obstinate. It almost defeated the S. A. T. C. plans, and for a time blocked their progress. College authorities, well aware of the dominant element of self-supporting youths in every institution, are accustomed to assume that the great public is equally aware of the fact. But the experience of the War Department Committee shows that public opinion is yet far from full enlightenment in this respect. If, therefore, the draft should reach down to ages 18-20, it was inevitable that the S. A. T. C. must eliminate every feature of privileged exemption from the draft.
By the last week in August, it became certain that the ages 18-20 would be included in the new draft law. The S. A. T. C. plans were, therefore, shifted to meet the new requirement. Registration day was to be September 12. All the complicated operations of the local boards, involving registration, questionnaires, classification, physical examination, induction, and mobilization, must, therefore, take place during the two weeks ensuing; and a special set of forms must be devised and distributed to the boards, the colleges, and the military officers. All arrangements appropriate to the status of students as soldiers in active service must be perfected; and here the various fixed requirements of statute and army regulations must be conformed to, by special devices. For example, the law as interpreted by the Federal Supreme Court and the Judge Advocate General’s office, forbade the use of either the furlough status or the reserve status, and hence the student soldiers must be placed on an active and pay status; this feature alone, besides involving some additional millions of expense, added many complications of documentary formality. Equipment for fall and winter weather must be provided; and this requirement called for clothing, blankets, bedding, and arms, at precisely the moment when General Pershing was pressing the War Department for all available supplies to equip the Expeditionary Force, whose numbers arriving in France were now leaping to the figure of 300,000 monthly. Barracks and mess halls must be provided and a system of accounts installed for an expenditure of nearly $200,000,000. Last, but not least, 3,000 military instructors must be found and sent to their stations. Suffice it to note, once more, not only that these arrangements were novel in their problems, but that there remained only five or six weeks in which to work them out and put them into effect, and to communicate the system to 4,500 selective service boards, to 600 college authorities, and to 3,000 military officers. As a culminating obstacle, the influenza epidemic, sweeping the country in September, interposed delay at every point.
That the system thus suddenly devised and installed worked defectively in some details and in some institutions was to be expected. The surprising circumstance is that, by October 1, it worked as well as it did.
If the normal college curriculum and routine suffered inroads, this was deliberately foreseen and intended. The sole object of the Committee was to help win the war by providing necessary officer material, for the spring of 1919, through the use of the college quarters, personnel, and student-body. If anything at all was to remain of the normal civic curriculum, that was simply so much incidental gain, to be thankful for, from the college civic point of view.
Many college authorities, especially many professors, naturally regretted this interference with normal methods. This state of mind led them also to judge severely the shortcomings of detail here and there in the operation of the system. Unaware as they were of the actual military necessities, and of the obstacles that had caused first delay and then haste, and removed as they were from the center of military anxiety and effort, this judgment was doubtless natural enough. Moreover, the explanations which might have placated this sentiment could not be made by the Committee freely to the college authorities in general, because full disclosure of reasons would have violated both military policy in the face of the enemy, and ordinary diplomacy affecting the relations with other branches of the War Department and with Congress.
But the personnel of the Committee, if not the general exigency of the war situation, might well have sufficed (and did in most cases suffice) to produce faith in the intentions and methods of the Committee: Only one of the three military members of the Committee was an officer of the Regular Army; of the Civilian Advisory Board, the chairman was a former professor of physics, and the executive secretary was a professor of philosophy, while the special staff organized for the collegiate branch of the S. A. T. C. had for its director a University president. It was certain that the S. A. T. C. organization, though dominated by the one purpose to provide competent military officer material, would be framed upon an intelligent and sympathetic understanding of college conditions, and would do all that was possible to preserve them from needless disruption. The Committee had reason to believe that all college authorities, could they have been placed in the Committee’s situation, would have given full approval to all the steps that were taken, and would have accepted as inevitable and inconsiderable the shortcomings of operation that attended the execution of the great purpose.
The military purpose was entirely achieved. And looking back at the principal result to the colleges, viz., the escape from an impending crisis of suspension and insolvency, it must also be maintained that the Students’ Army Training Corps was, from the college point of view, a marked success.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WIGMORE, Dean.
Report of the Dean of the Law School, 1919-20.
To the President of the University:
Herewith I lay before you my Annual Report as Dean of the Faculty of Law for 1919-1920.
THE FACULTY
The total number of persons attached to the Faculty of Law during the year was 36. (See Table A.)
THE STUDENTS
The total number of students registered for the year 1919-1920 was 279. (See Table B.)
The increase in the number of third-year students is due to the numerous men returning from military service to complete their law studies. It is remarkable, and contrary to all expectations, that thus far not a single student has been heard of who went into military service who failed to resume his law studies upon his discharge; and only one or two of those have been known to transfer to another school.
The relatively small increase in the number of first-year students is due to the application in September, 1919, of the new requirements for entrance and graduation, three years of college study for entrance and four years of law study for graduation. The entrance requirements applied only to those who had not commenced the study of law at this or another institution prior to September, 1919. The number thus qualifying under the new requirements was 26 (including 3 ”exceptional” students) ; the number in the first-year class who were entitled to join it without thus qualifying was 58.
The total number of women students was 16. (See Table C.)
The entrance preparation of the students (regular and special) is shown in Table E at the end of the report.
In order to exhibit the application of the new entrance requirements to the successive classes, the entrance preparation will hereafter be shown under the following headings:
[see Table EE on page 11]
The new requirement of three years of college credit for entrance affected only those entering the First Year Class after September 1, 1919. In that class there were 23 persons so qualified. Of the remainder, 61 in all, 20 had one or two years of college credit, and 41 were High School graduates. Of this number, three were admitted under the rules as ”exceptional” students, by special vote of the Faculty. The remainder, 58, had already matriculated prior to September 1, 1919, and were mostly young men returning at various times from military service.
The number of degrees conferred at Commencement is shown in Table F.
THE CURRICULUM
The four-year course of required studies for the first law degree went into effect in September, 1919, for the first-year class only. The remaining classes continued on the former schedule of offerings and requirements. There will be a period of transition in which neither schedule will be in full effect. An exposition of the scheme of the four-year course may, therefore, be postponed for a subsequent report. Suffice it here to say that the four-year course is now receiving the consideration of a Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, due to report at the next annual meeting, and that other schools are destined very soon to adopt it.
The only innovation thus far involved in the first year of the four-year curriculum is a course in General Survey, designed to lay a foundation of general information for all beginning law students.
Another innovation, involved in the program for the third and fourth years of the four-year curriculum, is the requirement of a Legal Clinic. This was voted by the Faculty to take effect for all third-year students in 1919-1920. This measure, already advocated in many quarters, has thus been first applied in this School as a requirement. The testimony of all concerned is an endorsement of its success. A pamphlet showing its operation is printed for the School. The enlargement of the Legal Clinic by placing it on a graduate footing is one of the prime objects for which an Endowment Fund is needed.
Another new course was a series of lectures on The League of Nations (International Constitutional Law) by Mr. Caldwell, open to members of the bar. The course was well given and well attended.
A summer quarter of instruction was given, for the first time in the history of the School, in 1919. The reason was the propriety and necessity of enabling the men returning from war service to complete their law studies as soon as possible. The attendance numbered 130. The Faculty was composed of some of the regular staff of resident professors and lecturers, with the addition of Judge Homer B. Dibell, as already noted.
In view of the adoption of the four-year curriculum, the Faculty has taken it for granted that a summer quarter will hereafter be a regular feature, so that industrious aspirants to the profession may reduce their time of preparations to three calendar years, by taking three summer quarters, with only a month of intermission each year. As a provisional step, it was voted to hold a summer course of ten weeks in 1920.
ENDOWMENT AND BUILDING FUND CAMPAIGN
The plans for an Endowment and Building Fund, initiated by a Joint Faculties Committee in 1916-1917, and providing for concentration of the four Chicago professional Schools on a near North Side Campus, were resumed by the Board of Trustees in May, 1919. An option was secured on the Farwell-Fairbank property on Chicago Avenue and Lake Shore Drive.
The Law School Alumni, realizing the need of early organization for the purpose, formed a General Committee in June, 1919. During the summer and fall, Class Committees for Chicago and State and District Committees for Illinois and other States were developed. In November a quiet campaign of solicitation was begun.
The objective was a minimum of $1,500,000, to cover building and endowment. The sum of approximately $200,000, from 500 alumni, was subscribed in this first stage of the quest. It remains to secure the greater part of the remainder by a few large subscriptions.
The enterprise has commanded unanimous approval from the Alumni, and the zeal of scores of the Committee members in giving personal service is a revelation of loyalty which must gratify the University. The sacrifice represented by the numerous subscriptions of relatively small amounts are a splendid token of the devotion of those alumni to the high interests of the School and of their profession.
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES FILLED
In my Annual Report of some six years ago, I compiled a list of list various professional committees or other responsible offices in which the members of our Faculty were rendering gratuitous public service. The list was intended to exhibit the variety of public service in professional and semi-professional fields, for which a call is legitimately made upon the members of a law faculty, and the extent to which our Faculty does receive and respond to such a demand. As that list is now obsolete, I present herewith a list (which is certainly not complete) of the committees and other offices in which the various members of our Faculty were rendering public service involving their professional skill and attainments during the past year:
American Association of University Professors:
Committee on University Ethics, the chairman
American Bar Association:
Comparative Law Bureau, Board of Managers, one member.
American Field Service Fellowships in French Universities:
Committee on Nomination of Fellows, the chairman.
American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology:
Executive Board, the chairman and two members.
Editorial Board, three associate editors.
Research Committees, two members and a chairman.
Publications Committee, one member.
American Judicature Society:
Board of Directors, three members, and the secretary.
Association of American Law Schools:
Committee on Civil Procedure, two members.
Committee on Legal History, the chairman.
Committee on Legal Philosophy, the chairman and one member.
Central Howard Association:
Board of Advisers, one member.
Chicago Association of Commerce:
Committee on Education, one member.
Chicago Bar Association:
Committee on Legal Education, the vice-chairman.
Chicago City Club:
Committee on Suffrage and Elections.
Chicago Crime Commission:
Board of Advisers, two members.
Chicago Society of Advocates:
The secretary.
Chicago United Charities:
Legal Aid Bureau, Board of Directors, one member.
Illinois State Bar Association:
Committee on Legal Education, one member.
Committee on Legal History and Biography, one member.
Committee on Membership, one member.
lnter-American High Commission:
United States Section, one member.
League to Enforce Peace:
Staff of Lecturers, one member.
National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor:
Board of Trustees, one member.
National Municipal League:
Council, one member.
Committee on Municipal Courts, one member.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of State Legislation:
Illinois State Commission, one member.
Selden Society (of England):
Council, one member.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WIGMORE, Dean.
Report of the Dean of the Law School, 1920-21
To the President of the University:
Herewith I lay before you my Annual Report as Dean of the Faculty of Law for July 1, 1920, to July 1, 1921.
THE FACULTY
The total number of persons attached to the Faculty of Law during the year was 38. (See Table A.)
Professor Greeley was on leave of absence during the first semester, owing to a serious illness from which he was obliged to go to California to recuperate. His course in Conveyancing was given by Mr. Abraham J. Hennings, L.L.B., ’12, of the law firm of Hennings and Thulin, legal advisers to Messrs. Peabody, Houghteling & Co.; to Mr. Hennings’ loyal and able service in taking Professor Greeley’s place the University is deeply indebted.
The arrangement made last year, by which Professor Hyde’s courses were to be given jointly by himself and Associate Professor Watson, was duly carried out, with general satisfaction, Professor Hyde coming from Washington, for two periods of three weeks each, to deliver his part of the lectures. Professor Hyde’s treatise on American International Law, the fruit of some twenty years of toil, is now going through the press, and promises to be accepted as the standard American treatise in that field.
Professor Lew Sarett, of the School of Speech, gave for the first time in the Law School a course in Professional Speech. This course had been discontinued for ten years past, owing to the difficulty of finding a qualified instructor. Professor Sarett’s course proved to be everything that was hoped for. This instruction is now, by vote of the Faculty, compulsory upon all first-year students who have not had equivalent training. To our general regret, Professor Sarett withdraws now from the course, owing to other duties, but the course will be continued under his successor, from the School of Speech.
On the staff of the Summer Quarter, 1921, were the following, by special appointment, not on the regular Faculty :
Rousseau Angelus Burch, LL.B., Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court;
Ira Ellsworth Robinson, formerly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of West Virginia;
Homer B. Dibell, LL.B. (N. W., ’90), Judge of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
These three gentlemen each gave a single course. Mr. Justice Dibell had taken part in the Summer Term of 1919, and the success of that innovation had decided us to enlarge the plan. The experience has convinced us that the problem of a Summer Term for the Law School has found its solution in this method of composing the Faculty in part of Supreme Court Judges. It relieves the resident professors from all-the-year-round teaching. By inviting only those Judges of whose attainments we have personal knowledge, it assures the maintenance of our standards. By bringing together Judges and professors, it promotes a better understanding of the aims and methods of each group. By enabling students to meet Judges personally, it stimulates their ambitions, and inspires their work. In point of view of feasibility, the location of Chicago on Lake Michigan gives it the status of a summer resort for Judges located in the South, Southwest, and Northwest, and thus becomes attractive for Judges who can spend here a 40-day or 60-day vacation with the light burden of one lecture daily. Moreover, we have been gratified to receive unmistakable proof that the invitation from this School was regarded as an honor which any Judge might wish to accept. And the relatively modest honorarium, while it does no more than pay the living expenses of the Judge and his wife, seems to be satisfactory.
This method of composing a Summer Law Faculty is thus far unique among· American Law Schools. It is a success intrinsically, and we look to see it imitated by other Universities.
I desire here to record the recognition given by the University to my colleague, Frederick Beers Crossley, on the completion of his twentieth year of service in the School. The honorary degree of Master of Arts was awarded him by vote of the Board of Trustees in April, 1921. At the May meeting of the Faculty of Law the diploma was conferred by the President in privatim. The introduction in presenting the candidate to the President was as follows: ”Frederick Beers Crossley, a devoted officer of the University, now completing his twentieth year of invaluable service, skilled custodian of a splendid library of law, historian of the bench and bar of Illinois, wise counsellor of youth, possessing the respect, confidence and affection of the entire body of the Law School’s alumni.”
THE STUDENTS
The total number of students registered for the year 1920- 1921 was 201. (See Table B.)
The temporary decrease in the number of students is, of course, due to the application of the new requirements for entrance and graduation-three years of college study for entrance, and four years of law study for graduation. These requirements, going into effect for new students in September, 1919, applied this year to two classes. But we anticipate that the tide will not be long in turning; for with 600,000 persons in American colleges in 1921, as against 200,000 in 1917, the number of qualified persons is increasing at a rapid rate. A three-year college requirement is now no more intensive in its application than was formerly a four-year high school requirement. More law schools each year are adopting a two-year college requirement. At the meeting of the American Bar Association this year, the report of the Committee, chaired by Elihu Root, recommending that two years of college be required for admission to the Bar in all States, was adopted by an enormous and enthusiastic majority—the first time that the Association has gone on record for that measure. Our School will shortly begin to reap the fruits of its advanced position.
The four-year law course came up for debate at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in December, 1920. No action, however, was taken, and the matter was re-committed. It is evident that there is a strong sentiment in favor of it; but the timid and conservative element is for the moment in the saddle, and other issues are complicated with this one.
The total number of women students was 11. (See Table C.)
The geographical distribution is shown in Table D at the end of the report.
The entrance preparation of the students (regular and special) is shown in Table E.
In order to exhibit the application of the new entrance requirements to the successive classes, the entrance preparation will hereafter be shown under the following headings:
The number of degrees conferred at Commencement is shown in Table F.
THE CURRICULUM
On the four-year course, some comments are made above. It is notable that, from the point of view of popular or professional opinion, no word of dissent or disfavor has been received from any quarter, either from students, profession, or public. This could not have been the case, had not the measure found virtually universal approval.
GIFTS
Here will be noted only that the benefaction of Hon. Elbert H. Gary, ’67, was continued, and that the book purchases for the years 1919 and 1920 for the Elbert H. Gary Library of Law were again provided by his generosity, as already reported.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WIGMORE, Dean.
[see Table A and Table B on page 19][see Table C, Table D, Table E, and Table F on page 20]