REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL To the Maryland State Bar Association: The Committee on Legal Education has nothing special to report at this session of the State Bar Association. No change was made by the recent session of the Legislature in the qualifications of members of the Bar or in the method of their admission. No further rules have been formulated by the Court of Appeals for the guidance of the State Bar Examiners. The suggestion of a legislative requirement of a three years' course of legal study in a law school or university or in a lawyer's office, which was agitated and insisted upon by many members of the Bar several years ago, does not seem to have been brought to the attention of the last Legislature in any way. It may have been that the members of the Legislature were too busy with more important subjects, or regarded the conditions so far as the admission to the Bar is concerned, as satisfactory. There has always been a deeply-rooted objection in Maryland, outside the members of the Bar, to the requirement of a longer course of study than two years. When the Act of 1898 was passed, the late Hon. John S. Wirt, who had the bill in charge, endeavored to prescribe a period of three years' study, but was compelled by the country members of the Legislature, to reduce the term to two years. It is also said that the newly-appointed Law Examiners under that act were admonished to make the first examinations under the law easy for the applicants because the change from the old requirement was unpopular. It is impossible for a great many persons to understand why an industrious student cannot learn all the law necessary to fit him for practice in two years' time. But such is undoubtedly the popular feeling on the subject in Maryland, and until that feeling changes, your Committee deems it un wise to advise any attempt to change the law in this respect. After all it is only in a minority of the States that the threeyear rule is prescribed. In most other respects Maryland has adopted the requirements, plans and methods of bar examinations and admission now in vogue in the New England, the Middle, and the Middle Western States. Having regard to the growing importance of some, and the lessening importance of other subjects of the law, the Law Examiners have recently reduced the number of their examination questions under such subjects as Pleading and Evidence, and increased those under Corporations and Constitutional Law, and under the subject of Contracts have added questions on Bills and Notes to cover the important subject of Commercial Law. One of the most important effects of the Act of 1898 regulating admissions to the Bar is manifested by the large proportion of applicants, who now endeavor to qualify themselves by attending, and, if possible, graduating from the law schools. Ten years ago one-half the applicants had never had the advantage of law lectures, or the systematic legal instruction of the schools, but relied upon the old method of desultory reading in a lawyer's office. At present more than 90 per cent. of the applicants are either graduates of, or have attended law schools, to some extent. A liberal application of the authority conferred upon the Law Examiners by the recent rule of the Court of Appeals allowing them to reject an applicant for gross ignorance or lack of general education, as disclosed by his examination papers, has had a marked effect in stimulating the would-be lawyer to a better preparation in these respects. Prior to this rule the Examiners did not feel authorized to reject an applicant otherwise qualified, solely on account of his defective preliminary education, but they do not hesitate to do so now. It is believed that when this comes to be well understood by the applicants, the necessity of paying some serious attention to such preliminary details as Orthography, Gram mar and Expression, will be more apparent to them than it seems to have been in the past. Inasmuch as the next session of the Legislature is remote your Committee does not deem it expedient to make any suggestions for further legislation at this time. Should the experience of the next year develop any need for further amendments of the present law it can be more appropriately and effectively suggested for your action at your next annual session. Respectfully submitted, BENJ. A. RICHMOND, Chairman. The President: The report will be received and will be taken up for discussion in its regular order. I think the matter of Legal Education ought to be sometimes discussed here, as it is one of the most important matters this Association ought to deal with. Next, is the report of Committee on Grievances, Harry E. Mann, Esq., Chairman. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES. To the President and Members of the Maryland State Bar Association: The Committee on Grievances begs leave to report with pleasure that no matter of grievance or complaint has been submitted to this Committee during the past year, and that no business has been referred to it by the President or the Executive Council. All of which is respectfully submitted. HARRY E. MANN, ALEX. H. ROBERTSON, B. HARRIS CAMALIER. The President: If there is no objection that report will be received. I apprehend there will be no discussion needed on that report. The next is the report of the Committee on Legal Biography, Charles M. Armstrong, Esq., Chairman. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Maryland State Bar Association: Your Committee on Legal Biography reports that during the past year death has removed nine names from the roll of the Association, namely: William F. Porter, of Baltimore City-June 10th, 1907. Judge James McSherry, Frederick City-Oct. 23d, 1907. Pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII. of the Constitution we herewith submit memorials of these, our deceased members. WILLIAM F. PORTER. William F. Porter, the eldest of 10 children, and son of William E. and Sarah Paxon Porter, died on June 10, 1907, after a long illness. He was born on December 26, 1852, and received his early education in the public schools of Grafton, West Virginia, afterward studying two years at the West Virginia University at Morgantown, and two years at Washington and Lee University, of which General Robert E. Lee was then President. About 1870 Mr. Porter came to Baltimore and began to read law in the office of the late Judge George A. Dobbin, and in 1873, before he was 21 years of age, was admitted to the bar. During his practice Mr. Porter, for a number of years, was in partnership with the late Henry V. D. Johns. At the Bar he occupied a high position and commanded respect. Mr. Porter was a Democrat, and in 1899 came to the front in politics in Baltimore City, taking a leading part in the Mayoralty election of that year and in every city campaign thereafter until his death. His political activities were not prompted by selfish considerations, since he sought no personal reward. The only political position he ever held was on the Board of Election Supervisors for Baltimore City, although for many years he was a member of the Democratic State Central Committee for Baltimore City, and was for some time Chairman of the Executive Committee. In every relation of life Mr. Porter was found faithful. It afforded him genuine pleasure to do a kind act, and his sunny disposition, his generous nature and his companionableness drew to him many friends. WILFRED BATEMAN. Wilfred Bateman was born at Washington, D. C., on January 17, 1859. He was the son of the late Col. Henry E. Bateman and Arianna Bateman, the father being a prominent citizen of Talbot county, at one time Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the Eastern Shore, and later Comptroller of the State. The late Dr. J. M. H. Bateman and the late Charles Bateman and J. Frank Bateman of the Talbot Bar, were brothers of Wilfred, as was also Henry A. Bateman of Bal |