Monday, July 25, 2011

STUDENTS OF LAW MAY ESCAPE ORDEAL

From the Ontario (Calif.) Record
February 16, 1911

Local attorneys are much interested in a bill offered in the legislature by Senator Caminetti, which provides that graduates of the San Francisco Law School, as well as the law department of the University of California and Stanford, shall be entitled to practice before the State courts without examination.  The bill also provides that the chief justice of the State Supreme Court may order an examination if he sees fit.

Many lawyers are opposed to the bill for the reason that it is claimed law students even in practical law colleges did not get the inner spirit of the law as those who realize they must buckle down to the acquiring of legal knowledge in a way that will help them to pass a severe examination of the Appellate Court, or other examination.

Professor Woodward of Stanford, who has been advocating the Bar Association’s bill for a State board of examiners to supervise the admission of attorneys to practice, thinks that no law school graduate should have a license without examination.

Ursus Major

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger McTwo said...

If only this had come to pass...

7/25/2011 8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For the reason that it is claimed." I have a really hard time believing that sentence was printed in a newspaper in 1911.

7/25/2011 10:02 AM  
Blogger McTwo said...

Why is that? It appears in Northern Pac. R. Co.
v. Patterson
, 154 U.S. 130 (1894). I don't really follow the development of newspapers, but I vaguely recall that newspapers used to have much more complexity of language than they do today.

I feel very nerdy for finding a case to support that.

7/25/2011 10:20 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

The article is genuine but McTwo, you confuse me. Are you under the impression that today's newspapers write like today's Supreme Court?

7/25/2011 10:27 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

I think McTwo has a point. Anonymous claimed that in that era, a newspaper would not use that particular phrase, implying that it is a much more current usage. But if the Court used the expression 17 years earlier, there is a presumption that the expression was around at the time. It's not claiming that newspapers write like the courts or vice versa.

7/25/2011 10:30 AM  
Blogger McTwo said...

No, that's what I meant the second sentence to clarify. My understanding is that older newspapers were more complicated linguistically, and thus more likely to use phrases which would appear in the Supreme Court's writing of the time.

Now-a-days, newspapers tend to be around 5th or 6th grade reading comprehension level.

7/25/2011 10:32 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

@Armen: and use by the Supreme Court automatically places a phrase in common usage?

7/25/2011 10:36 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

Patrick, you're missing the point. You can't argue that the use of a particular expression could not have occurred in a particular era when that expression was in fact used 17 years earlier. It doesn't matter what the respective sources are.

Of course the Supreme Court's usage doesn't mean it was a common phrase thrown around in the parlance of our times. But it also means that the argument that the newspaper article is somehow fake because it contains that phrase and is dated 1911 is bunk--which was McTwo's point.

7/25/2011 10:42 AM  
Blogger McTwo said...

How about a New York Times article from 1911? New York Times, Sep 15, 1911.

7/25/2011 10:43 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Well if that is the point you are right: i missed it. I think I misunderstood the anonymous comment (anonymous? are you still there?). I read it to say not that the phrase wasn't in usage, by that no newspaper of that era would use such clunky construction. Hence the head scratching over the SCOTUS cite. 

7/25/2011 10:49 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

*but that

7/25/2011 10:50 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

Don't be fatuous, Patrick.

7/25/2011 10:52 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

"Well. It sounds like we can close the file on that one!"

7/25/2011 10:54 AM  
Blogger McWho said...

Best thread since graduation.

7/25/2011 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's just really awkward phrasing, was the point.

7/25/2011 1:43 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Ha!!

7/25/2011 2:28 PM  
Blogger McTwo said...

This thread brought to you by M. Night Shyamalan.

7/25/2011 3:22 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Liu to CA Supreme Court.

7/26/2011 9:15 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

We must have seen that post around the same time.

7/26/2011 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick, why did you write "@ Armen:"?

Can't you address Armen by simply writing "Armen:"? Why do you need the "@"?

7/26/2011 5:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home