nearer to what is now an almost universal rule among civilized communities; namely, that there shall be a right of action for wrongfully or negligently causing death. The fact that most of the European nations and substantially all of the states of the United States have adopted this rule shows that it is founded on a recognized moral principle which the law should approach rather than avoid. It may be suggested that the doctrine entrenches upon the limited liability rule. But it should be remembered, as already pointed out, that the federal courts have already taken the step of enforcing rights of action under state statutes for death occurring on state territorial waters, thereby imposing upon shipowners a far more serious liability than would be imposed by the adoption of the rule urged in this article. Furthermore, the liability for damages for causing death on the high seas may be limited as well as any other liability.'

In

any event a man's life is more important than his property. G. Philip Wardner.

BOSTON.

1 Butler v. Boston Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527.

THE NEXT STEP IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE CASE-BOOK.1

THIS assumes took methods of teaching law are no

HIS article assumes that the comparative merits of the case

longer an issue in legal education. It assumes, also, that the casebooks, as represented by those in use at the Harvard Law School, have driven the text-book pretty much out of existence as a means of instruction. Are these case-books, however, and those constructed on similar lines, the last word? Do they represent perfection for all time to come? Probably not. What, then, is to be the next radical step in their evolution? It is the purpose of this article to maintain that in the older and more important jurisdictions of the United States there is a legitimate and increasing demand for instruction in first-class law schools by case-books arranged, so far as topics treated are concerned, upon the lines of the present Harvard Law School case-books, but composed as far as practicable of cases from the particular jurisdiction, with the end to present an accurate exposition of the law in force at the present day in that jurisdiction. Such a demand will, it is believed, dictate the next radical step in the evolution of the case-book itself.

The securing of the approval of those who already agree with me would hardly justify the present effort. It is, therefore, my object to reach those who bristle with opposition at the very suggestion of the step proposed. Let me ask them, however, to put aside for the moment their opposition upon the ultimate matter for argument, and to consider briefly those preliminary matters about which we can all heartily agree.

We can agree in the first place, I think, that whatever excellence the Harvard Law School case-book may have, and whatever high function it may fulfil, it does not present a perfect and detailed

1 The fact that the writer occupies a position as teacher in a law school which uses, perhaps as extensively as any, excepting Harvard itself, the Harvard Law School casebooks, makes it necessary to say at the outset, with some emphasis, that the above article is written entirely in his private capacity. The views expressed in it must not be taken as representing those of any other member of the faculty of which he is a member, much less as being the foundation of any action by the school in the scope and subject-matter of its teaching.

picture of the present state of the law in any particular one of the older and more important jurisdictions of the United States. apparent that English law, so far as it is unaffected by the more modern statutes, is the only single system that is minutely examined in the cases of the particular jurisdiction where it is or was in force. No doubt only that part of the English law is taught which has in general been transplanted to America. Perhaps here and there a new subject is added which is not to be found at all in the English cases. It is obvious, also, that the Harvard Law School case-book contains American cases which tend to show modifications or departures from the rules of the English law in some jurisdictions in this country. Sometimes, perhaps, the American cases go a little farther and tend to show the adoption in a particular state of the rules of the English law. When all is said, however, it appears to be true that the Harvard Law School case-book does not, and does not purport to give an accurate and detailed picture of the law of any single American jurisdiction.

We can also all agree, I am sure, that the proper aim of the law school is to turn out lawyers well equipped for practice, or who will become so upon a comparatively brief apprenticeship. This is emphasized very neatly in a few words by Sir Frederick Pollock in a recent number of the Law Quarterly Review at the end of some appreciative remarks concerning the work of the late Professor Langdell.1 He says:

"It is perhaps necessary to say here, though in America it is now superfluous, that the Harvard Law School under Professor Langdell's system has produced not mere theoretical students, but lawyers well equipped for practice. . . . Meanwhile the majority of the English bar, or at any rate of those in authority, continue, it seems, to believe that law cannot be taught at all. The Law Society thinks otherwise."

Obviously Sir Frederick Pollock justifies the teaching of law by law schools by repelling any insinuation that the law school gives its students merely a liberal education, or that it makes them historical scholars or mere theoretical lawyers. He justifies the teaching of law by law schools because they can produce, to use his own phrase, "lawyers well equipped for practice," or, to modify this very slightly, "lawyers who will become so upon a comparatively brief apprenticeship." This certainly does not mean, in the mouth. of a member of the English bar, that they can produce merely

1 22 L. Quar. Rev. 335.

better and more efficient office clerks, or even attorneys and solicitors who become client caretakers, or professional trustees, or even the directors of great industrial enterprises and policies, but who never enter a court room on a contested matter. It means that the law school can and does equip the men who will become competent to handle the most difficult litigated problems of law and fact, whose work will be before the trial and appellate courts, and in whose hands the shaping of the law will lie, and whose ultimate destination may be leadership at the bar or an honorable place upon the bench.

We can also agree, I think, that the lawyer to be well equipped for practice at the bar in this exalted sense must know the actual rules of law in force where he practices. It is not enough that he knows where to find them. Practice could hardly be profitable or successful if one went upon the principle that no rule need be definitely known till the occasion for using it arises. It is not even enough that what the rule probably is may be known. The wellequipped lawyer is one who knows, in a field of considerable extent at least, the exact situation in a given jurisdiction. He may also know whether it is right or wrong, or how it compares with the rule in force in other jurisdictions, but, first of all, he knows what the rule is. He necessarily knows what the rules are in the terms of the decisions of the particular jurisdiction. He may indeed distinguish between good exposition and bad, but, at any rate, he knows the terms in which the fixed results are expressed.

A reasonable amount of agreement upon these preliminary matters will make the issue between us quite plain and precise. Those who are well satisfied with the present Harvard Law School casebooks will no doubt concede that to cause one who has mastered their contents to be well equipped for actual practice at the bar of one of the older and more important jurisdictions, much toil and effort over the local law is necessary. On the other hand, I must in fairness admit that this line of effort is to some extent inevitable, and that a law school cannot expect to turn out graduates at once well equipped for practice at the bar in such jurisdictions. The real question between us is this: Does the present case-book go far enough in equipping its graduates for actual practice at the bar in the older and more important jurisdictions? The answer to this question depends entirely upon how long it takes in such jurisdictions to bridge the gap between that knowledge which is the reward for having mastered the case-books, and that which is necessary to

a good working knowledge of the substantive law in the particular jurisdiction. If it takes only a short time, then no doubt the casebook is doing all that can be expected of it. If it takes a long time, if in fact the work is so laborious that it cannot be done under ordinary circumstances within a reasonable time, and consequently is not being done at all, then the case-book is certainly open to objection.

The charge against the present Harvard Law School case-book is that in the older and more important jurisdictions the work of checking up its results with the local law has become an impossibility. It does not merely take time. It can't be done. Life is too short. I venture to assert that to obtain a good working knowledge of the law in such jurisdictions on topics studied in the Harvard Law School case-book, it is necessary carefully to note the actual departures by statute and by decision from the law as taught by the case-book, to supply new topics closely related to the subject-matter of the case-book, to learn the wellsettled rules taught by the case-book, or the solution of controverted questions, in terms of the cases of the particular jurisdiction. I do not hesitate to affirm that these steps involve so much labor that the individual student who has mastered the subject-matter of the case-books can no longer do it for the courses or even the majority of those which he studies during three years in a law school.

This is too serious a charge to be made without something in the way of proof.

Suppose, then, we resort to experiment to determine how long it will take a student of the Harvard Law School case-books to master the law in one of our older and more important jurisdictions on the subjects covered by those case-books. Suppose, for instance, we attempt to estimate what the student of the fifth and part of the sixth volumes of Gray's Cases on Property, concerning conditional and future interests and illegal conditions and restraints, must do to gain exact knowledge of the status of the Illinois law on the subjects studied, and how long it will take him.

I am aware, of course, that the details of the Illinois law, as such, are of no interest whatever here, but what you would not consider for itself may well arrest your attention because of the general condition which it typifies.

It cannot be made too clear at the outset that our student has no exact knowledge of the rules in Illinois on the topics he has