THE STUDENTS JOURNAL.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY
By the
Students Journal Pub. Go.
Frank H. Moore...Editor-in-Chief
Rollin E. Blackman...Local Editor
Arthur L. Corbin...Literary Editor
BUSINESS MANAGERS
CHAS, H. LEASE.
WARREN EDWARDS.
ASSOCIATES
Jno. H. Henderson Literary
W. C. Atchison Local
Frank E. House Exchanges
H. Parker The Halls
Jas. M. Mc Alvey
H. C. Riggs Snow Hall
Mayo Thomas Law School
The stock of the STUDENT'S JOURNAL company consists of non-transferable one dollar shares. Any student instructor or employee of the University may hold one and only one share.
This paper is on file at the editorial rooms of the University Review, 236 North avenue. New York, where all college men are given a hearty welcome.
SPRING Oratorical Contest tonight.
--naturally have charge of the erection of a May pole, were one to be erected, introduce some form of exercises as interesting as the totem pole ceremony? If, however, they cannot do this, we can suggest a way in which they may be sure of improving upon the present custom, that is by giving up entirely the celebration of May day. We still believe that this is much to be preferred to the continuance of the present exercises.
An inter-fraternity base ball league has been organized. Why do not the Barbs organize a team to play the winners?
PROP. LUCIEN I. BLAKE, of the University of Kansas, has received an invitation to repeat his course of lectures before the University Extension Society in Chicago.—Kansas City Star.
THE decided increase of interest shown in the Spring Oratorical Contest this year by the entrance of six contestants—all that are allowed to enter—insures a successful contest; in fact, but one thing more is necessary to make a complete success—a good audience. The contest is held this evening.
THE annual average cost for each student in the larger universities of America, without taking into account at all the equipment of the school, or any money expended by student in tuition, living, or other expenses, is three hundred sixty-seven dollars. Does the average student ever stop to consider whether he is so directing his efforts as to get an education worth that amount to him?
--naturally have charge of the erection of a May pole, were one to be erected, introduce some form of exercises as interesting as the totem pole ceremony? If, however, they cannot do this, we can suggest a way in which they may be sure of improving upon the present custom, that is by giving up entirely the celebration of May day. We still believe that this is much to be preferred to the continuance of the present exercises.
THE S. U. I. Quill publishes the following newspaper clipping which is, as it says, "quite suggestive."
CHARLOTTESVILLE Vn., March 31.—A member of the medical class of the University of Virginia was, it is alleged detected in cheating on the practice of medicine examination. The class paused in its labors on examination papers, held a meeting, heard statements against the accused and offered him an opportunity to defend himself, which he did not accept. Resolutions were then passed requesting him to leave the University, and giving him 24 hours in which to do so. The class then resumed its work on the examination which had been interrupted.
The accused man withdrew from the University, first having returned all diplomas that had been awarded him in the past. He however persistently refused to leave the city, denying the right of any one to interfere with him. The students have used every argument to induce him to go away and avoid trouble, as they do not want him to incur any risk. They escorted him to a west-bound train and he boarded it.
In objecting to our advice that the May day exercises as now conducted, be discontinued, the Courier proceeds to discuss university enthusiasm implying that we are not in favor of it. We believe in university enthusiasm just as much as the editor of the Courier, but we do not consider that university enthusiasm should be held responsible for senseless exhibitions like the present May Day performance, which has lost even the merit of novelty—the only merit if ever had. Is not this lack of university enthusiasm shown most clearly by the way in which the same foolish custom is adhered to year after year, no attempt being made to improve upon it? The Senior class of '93 introduced a very entertaining ceremony in the erection of the totem pole last years. Why cannot the classes that would
The faculty advisory committee by the hasty withdrawal of the recommendation that all games with professional clubs be forbidden, and the substitution therefor of the recommendation that games with professional teams should be played only on the home grounds showed, we think it may be fairly claimed, that they had not fully considered the matter in all its aspects. It seems to us that if there is to be a Faculty advisory committee whose recommendations to the University council are accepted by that body and given by it the form of positive rules, there should also be a students' advisory committee to present to the University council the students' side of the questions upon which the Faculty advisory committee presents its views. There has been considerable dissatisfaction shown by the students on one or two occasions during the past year because there is no way by which the students may express directly to the Faculty their opinions on subjects which concern them, and obtain from the Faculty a reply. Petitions by the dozen are usually sent in during the year by students and even the receipt of most of them is unacknowledged. Speaking on the subject of the "Right of Petition" in chapel some time ago, a member of the Faculty proposed as an improvement on the practice of presenting petitions, the following method of communicating with the Faculty: A certain number of students should be chosen—perhaps one from each class or from a number of groups into which the students should be divided for this purpose—to represent the students whenever they wished as a body to communicate with the faculty. Then whenever an occasion arises that makes it desirable that the student body should express its opinion on any subject, the students may meet in these groups, take action on the subject and instruct the student who is to represent them before the faculty. In this way the students are sure of having their claims more fully and accurately presented than is possible by a petition and they are much more sure of obtaining an answer. We think the plan is worthy of being adopted in its entirety; but at any rate on athletic matters we think there should be a students' committee selected to represent either to the Faculty advisory committee or to the University council, or to both the opinions of the students on subjects concerning which the Faculty advisory committee intends to make recommendations. Naturally the Faculty will not always look upon matters in the same way that the students do; and it seems only just that if the recommendations of the Faculty advisory committee are to be given the force of absolute law, the students before the recommendations are acted upon, should be given an opportunity to present their side of the question, for as the late events show the advisory committee may make mistakes.
ENGLISH AND THE LAW.
To the student of English there is a certain pleasure in the quaintnesses and foibles of expression found in old books, merely as quaintnesses and foibles, and a still greater pleasure in comparing with them the no less picturesque but far more accurate and striking expressions used by the best writers of present day English. For such comparisons are full of kernel to whomever is interested in marking the increase of ease and of exactness in English prose. There can scarcely be a denial of the assertion that the English used by prose writers of to-day is superior to that used by English prose writers of three, two, one hundred years ago. When we open a book of prose of one of these earlier dates, we do so expecting to find ambiguous and obscure expressions, lesions of grammar, abundant bathos, and no end of little personalities of style tending to mar rather than to finish the work. But there is perceptible and continual improvement as to these faults in the productions of each succeeding period, and in prose of to-day page after page may be turned without uncovering such offenses.
The Need of Striuter Requirements as to Preparation in English for Admission to Schools of Law.
found in scientific and technical prose as well as in what may be called literary prose, it will not, unfortunately, be found in so great a degree. There are old scientific treatises, full of obscurities and of other faults of style and arrangement, yet less obscure, less fatiguing to the reader than some similar works of the present—in other words, are written in better English. Indeed, it may be said of not a few technical works, that the professional standing of their author is the only thing that saves them from utter condemnation as puzzles in language too difficult to waste time upon. An alleged excuse is sometimes offered for this absence of good English; namely, that the specialist cannot be expected to be particular about anything except his specialty, and therefore must not be held to account for miserable English; which is no excuse at all, but the avowal of a feeling that promises little for the purity of the mother tongue.
But while this improvement may t
Nowhere are faults such as those spoken of better exemplified than in law books and among lawyers. Those who have attempted to read old English cases, or even works much later than those of Blackstone, will surely recall the great difficulty they had, aside from the heavy matter and legal tone of the writings, in finding sense in or authority for many of the con, constructions used. Yet, if they have also undertaken to read law books written, say within the past thirty years, or decisions reported within the same time, they will be ready to acknowledge that the lawyer's language is to-day often almost as obscure as it was before the art of expression began to be attended to particularly.
Men of the highest learning in the profession of law attempt to write books which shall set forth the results of the investigations their writers have made—books that should be of the utmost value because of the qualifications of the author to speak upon the subjects involved; but the works are mere jumbles of words, often put together so carelessly as to be rendered into meanings entirely different from those intended to be conveyed, or to be capable of no sensible rendering, either with or without the context. And it almost seems that some law writers who have reputation as authorities take advantage of their standing to pitch together a hodge podge of ambiguities every few months, for the sake of getting upon the market as many works as possible, regardless of the lessened value of the books by reason of poor composition.
Moreover, I believe it may truly be said that to the profession is to be charged no small share of the corruption, not only of written but also of spoken English, that is continually going on. The crudities of style, the violence done to grammar, the utter recklessness displayed as to the selection of exact synonyms—the degrading influences which are perhaps little if any weaker than the corrupting influences which a careless press is having. The lawyer is prominent in the community, a mingler with men. He often stands before large audiences and addresses them or in their presence speaks to a jury; or he appears in local print; and his style, made attractive by personal qualities, is taken as a model of speech by the uneducated, and even influences educated people. In this way the evil habits of language that he has acquired from his books and encouraged in himself are spread far and wide through the community, to the continual corruption of good English.
To change these conditions in so far as the influence of law English is responsible for them, and also to cultivate in the lawyer a more efficient because a truer and more exact style of expression, no means should be overlooked by law scholars interested alike in the English tongue and the welfare of their profession. It may be objected to any proposition for reform of these conditions, that law language is a language by itself, in that it has peculiar terns and manner of expression; that the style of spoken discourse naturally is taken by the lawyer as his standard in writing, and he is not to be subjected to criticism for adhering to his standard; and that the freedom of expression necessary to the lawyer's exposition and argument cannot in justice be lessened by the imposition of arbitrary rules. The first objection may be put aside once; it has already been said, that what is subject to criticism is something not due to the weighty substance or tone of the discourse.
The second objection—that spoken discourse is the lawyer's standard of style—raises the question: By what right does the lawyer take oral discourse as his standard for written style? It cannot be denied that he does so. The weak arrangement of
minor points, the lack of unity of composition and the illogical succession of sentences: the misrelated particles, the ambiguities of expression and obscurities in pronominal reference, the ill-considered or unconsidered choice of synonyms, the whole body of rhetorical rules violated by him, now at one point, now at another, now at many or all points, proves that the lawyer carries to his table with him the liberty of the rostrum, and writes as he has spoken. But by what right does he so? Before the court, before the jury, his sentences have been illuminated by gesture of feature and of body, by rise and fall of voice, by emphasis. There has not been time, in the sweep of his words, to mark their inaccuracies, and personal delivery has often prevented his sentences from having the doubleness of meaning, the seeming absence of meaning, that is their most noticeable attribute on the printed page. But he has no reason to believe that his spoken discourses—broken, disconnected, hasty in thought and structure—will be intelligible in type. He has no right to demand of his part of the reading public, the recognition of which is all that enables him to sell a single book—he has no right to demand that they shall struggle with language which, perhaps plain enough when spoken, altogether lacks the necessary means of interpretation when it appears in dead black and white. It would possibly be otherwise if his spoken style were good, but it is not. Same lack of training makes his oral style worse even than his written, and the lawyer that forces it, even though in somewhat improved form, upon his readers, is guilty, not merely of a violation of the principles of composition, but of a robery of the reader's time, a mayhem upon his interest, often a fraud upon his understanding.
The third objection needs little refutation. Rules, it is true, underlie all artful composition; but their whole object and justification is in the ease, the freedom of expression which they secure to the writer. The rules of composition never have deprived and never will deprive an author of the right to be original, unique, picturesque; and he has never had a right to be confused, ambiguous, or senseless, to become a thief of time and a murderer of good English; and there are a good many law writers who deserve speedy literary electrocution for these very offenses.
But the electrocution of the law writers would not do away with the evil. New offenders would be mangling the language before the current had ceased to flow, and there would remain besides these the large majority of careless lawyers, not writers of text books, but none the less influential otherwise upon the speech and literature of the country. It is manifest that something more practical must be resorted to, and that the reform must be expected from the new spirit brought to bear upon prospectwe lawyers rather than upon lawyers already practicing.
"An old dog does not learn new tricks," neither will a man break away from long-fixed habits. So the lawyer of the present who weakens his case by poorly constructed pleadings, and his argument to crudities and absurdities of style, will probably never change, will perhaps ridicule the thought that a change may be needed either to strengthen his presentation of cases or to make his language conform to reputable usage.
The necessary change in methods and education must be made, therefore, in those who will be the lawyers of the future.
But the difficulty still remains, of making the change. How is it to be done? By what means are lawyers to be made careful, discriminating, conscientious, in their use of language? It is a mighty work, the cultivation in an entire profession of such mental habits us as are required for this end. True; but the work is going on, and there is no reason to doubt that, as the importance of pure language comes to be recognized more and more, this cultivation will be extended among lawyers until the charge of using the poorest of English can no longer be nearly sustained against their class.
It may be said that law has done nothing more than follow the spirit of the times, in the development which has as a characteristic this better English. But there has been and still has to be something in each profession through which, as a means, improvement must be brought about. In the profession of law, the schools of law have been largely this means, and to them is accordingly due no small part of the general culture of lawyers, and the improvement in their language, spoken and written. But it is not the work of law schools to give literary training. Literary culture is encouraged by them because it is recognized that literary culture is becoming a necessity to those who would excel in their profession or hold position among educated men. But it is the work of the law schools not TO GIVE PREPARATORY TRAINING, BUT TO OFFER ADVANTAGES FOR STUDY IN THIS PARTICULAR PROFESSION TO SUCH AS ARE ALREADY PREPARED FOR THAT STUDY. It therefore becomes their duty to set a standard to be reached by students before they may enter the schools; and to refuse all applicants whose qualifications are not up to the standard. This they profess to do; to see how important language is held by law educators, one need but look in the catalogs of law schools, where, among the requirements for admission he will almost invariably find, "A knowledge of English." etc.
But unfortunately, this requirement is enforced by only a few schools. And generally the lower the rank of the school, the less the requirement is enforced. In most shorthand schools of the present, although the stenographer's work requires extensive training and especially a good English education, the only requirement for admission is enough money to pay for tuition. So in many schools of law the "student" would almost be registered if only he were able to spell through a paragraph from some law book. Lawyers beginning their profession so poorly qualified may become reliable authorities upon points of law and practice, but the chances are ninety-nine in one hundred that they will not be liberal, cultured men. Still more are the chances against the probability of their becoming users of the perfect language of culture.
The injurious reaction of these literary incompetences upon the profession requires, therefore, that they be allowed no longer to secure the right of practice by attending law schools. Undoubtedly they will continue for a while to gain admission to practice; but that is no excuse for making entrance into the profession easier for them, but the contrary. They will be weights, not wings, in the pursuit of its ideal; and the primary duty of our law schools is, to fit for the bar only men who have both the ability and the education to assist in making the profession what its work and the conditions of society require it shall be—as cultured, as refined, as liberal, as true is any profession in the land.
To admit others than these is wrong. It degrades the profession. It cheats society by helping into places of responsibility—the lawyer's place is always one of responsibility—men but partly qualified to discharge the duties that will devolve upon them. And when the incompetence is in a degree due to insufficient education in the use and science of language, keeping the incompetent also helps in the corruption of pure English. It falls largely upon the law schools to keep the lawyer a leader in the community, a power for the most progressive culture and learning. And they can in part fulfill the obligation by strictly enforcing the new nominal requirement, that every student shall have a knowledge of the principles of English, by raising the standard and increasing the amount of English necessary for entrance, and by establishing such strict requirements if they do not already exist. Such action on the part of law schools would work no real hardship, for if an applicant qualified to study law presented himself, he would have no difficulty in getting admitted—only unqualified applicants would be affected in any way, and for them, for the profession, for literature and the language, and for the community, it is better that such men be refused any encouragement to inflict themselves upon the world as lawyers. To refuse such applicants will not bring about ideal literary conditions among lawyers, or ideal law literatures nor is it supposed that by rejecting them will be brought to pass the numerous law reforms that might be urged; the perfection of the process; or even absolute purity of language among its members.
But it is maintained that there would be, from the rejection of unqualified men, a resultant raising of the standard of culture and education required for the practice of law. The wide influence of the lawyer upon language will be made powerful for its purity, not for its corruption, and since every step that promises improvement should be unb恳stituted taken, the adoption by law schools of stricter requirements as to English preparation for entrance should be demanded by friends of pure speech and by members of the profession of law wherever they may be. ROBERT W. NEAL
The Senior Pharmacy class began the study of new organic compounds this week. Profs. Dafnes and Sayre will lecture alternately on the subject.