USA > Missouri > The history of the bench and bar of Missouri : With reminiscences of the prominent lawyers of the past, and a record of the law's leaders of the present > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94
This led to the regular school, now firmly established in all parts of our country. Remembering the necessarily severe rule that every one is supposed to know the law, it must be matter of wonder that the State has generally done so little to enable the citizen to comply with its mandate; or at least to equip those to whom the citizen must be expected to look for counsel. But here as elsewhere the apparent shortcomings of the State have been supplied, or the efforts of the State have at least been supplemented, by the ready efforts of voluntary contributors. The law schools under strict State protection must be regarded with the highest appreciation. It should be enjoined upon every Missouri legis- lator to serve the cause of law and order and of justice by voting generous appropriations to our own State Law School at Columbia. Still it must be said that the schools of great- est influence in this country are under private control. And it inay be added with equal confidence that in all schools depending upon private aid the practicing lawyer has been found among the active and substantial supporters. Nowhere has this been more true than with reference to the St. Louis Law School. Up to the close of the Civil War, the system of legal education, if it is to be designated by that term, in the city of St. Louis, was of the very primitive character heretofore described. About that time the necessity for more perfect means of training was recognized. While the first impulse was given by a distin- guished man not connected with the law, but whose aim it always was to close the chasm between law and ethics, an examination of the records will show that the leaders of the bar of St. Louis, and other eminent jurists whose interests were closely identified with that city, promptly took up the suggestion and carried it to a successful realization.
ST. LOUIS LAW SCHOOL.
In 1867, Rev. William G. Eliot was President of Washington University, of St. Louis. He was a man who by reason of his interest in inatters educational and religious, justly ranked as one of the first citizens of the State. Perhaps no avenue had afforded greater opportunity for his activity than the university for which he labored incessantly, constantly broadening its general sphere, and striving to encourage and to inspire its instructors. The university itself offered fine opportunity for this work. Actuated by a liberal and wise judg- ment, the Legislature of the State had as early as February 22, 1853, given it a valuable charter, which has secured much in return and which promises to accomplish vastly more in the future. Always interested in the great purpose of the law, and recognizing its vital importance to the community, Dr. Eliot was the first to advance the plan of organizing a Law Department. The plan was promptly taken up by the Board of Directors and was en-
42
THE HISTORY OF THE BENCH AND BAR OF MISSOURI.
thusiastically promoted by them and by other gentlemen who became associated with the work. Among those present at the first meeting we find the names of James H. Lucas, Samuel Treat, John M. Krum, James E. Yeatman, John How, and Henry Hitchcock, and it is noteworthy that this meeting was held at the office of Judge Samuel Treat, at that time the eminent United States District Judge at St. Louis. The very first report upon the subject of organization made by John M. Krum, shows that from the start the fundamental idea of the school, which still prevails, was advocated and adopted. It was determined then that the faculty should in the main consist of active practitioners; and that students before receiving degrees should be subjected to an independent examination by an Advisory and Examining Board to consist of active members of the bar. The same report discloses the important and gratifying fact that all those who had been selected for different positions in connection with the proposed work cheerfully agreed to serve. The full significance of this statement can be appreciated only when it is remembered that the proposed Law School practically excluded the idea of compensation for members of the faculty or the Advisory Board. In this respect the school has never resembled those institutions organized under our dangerously liberal State statutes, in which it would be difficult to say whether the commercial or the educational features are intended to predominate. While the Dean, who is now compelled to give his entire time, necessarily receives a fixed compensation, and while a few of the regular professors are at least measurably compensated, the other inem- bers of the faculty give their services either without material return, or for purely nominal amounts. The spirit which gave rise to the school, may therefore be said to animate it still in all its work.
The first faculty consisted of the following members of the bar, among whom the work was asigned as follows: Hon. Samuel Treat: International, Constitutional, Admiralty and Maritime Law; the Jurisdiction, Practice and Proceedings in United States Courts. Judge Treat appointed as Assistant Professor Alexander Martin, now the honored Dean of the Law Department of the State University.
Hon. Nathaniel Holmes: History and Science of Law; Equity Jurisprudence, Plead- ings and Practice.
Hon. Albert Todd: The Law of Real Property and Successions.
Hon. John D. S. Dryden: The Law of Pleading, Practice and Evidence, and Criminal Jurisprudence.
Henry Hitchcock, Esq .: The Law of Contracts and Commercial Law.
Mr. Hitchcock was selected as the first Dean of the law faculty. Without detracting from the services rendered by others at this time, it may be said that the early success of the department is to be attributed more especially to the energy and zeal with which Mr. Hitchcock labored for the school both as Dean and instructor. It is only one of many in- stances in which he has rendered effective service to the community without that ostenta- tious recognition which is apt to come to the promoters of a less distinctly public cause.
The first advisory committee consisted of the following gentlemen: Hon. Samuel F. Miller, of U. S. Supreme Court; Hon. David Wagner, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Mis- souri; Hon. Arnold Krekel, U. S. Judge Western District of Missouri; Hon. Charles B. Lord, St. Louis Circuit Court; Hon. Samuel Reber, St. Louis Circuit Court; Hon. W. B. Napton, late Chief Justice of Missouri; Samuel T. Glover, Esq .; John M. Krum, Esq .; John R. Shepley, Esq .; Charles C. Whittlesey, Esq. ; James O. Broadhead, Esq.
43
ST. LOUIS LAW SCHOOL.
The foundation for a library was laid by the expenditure of $2,000 provided by Dr. Eliot.
Thus equipped the St. Louis Law School was formally opened on October 16, 1867, in the old Polytechnic Institute on the corner of Seventh and Chestnut streets, Chancellor Chauvenet, of Washington University, presiding. The Dean announced that members of the junior class would meet the faculty on the following day at the Law School lecture room on the fourth floor of the Polytechnic Institute, and Professor Treat delivered the inaugural address. Since that day the changes have been inany. After a few years, Mrs. Henry Hitchcock generously gave an additional $6,000 to the library on condition that the lecture rooms be removed to the building of Washington University on Seventeenth and Washing- ton avenue. The condition was accepted; adequate rooms were provided and the library assumed its true place in the course of legal training. In 1880 the building, 1417 Locust, was permanently dedicated by the University Trustees to the purposes of the Law School; so that this department now occupies its own building, making ample provision for lecture rooms, a large library, offices for the Dean and faculty, and rooms for classes and for student societies. The library, so inodestly started, contains over 7,000 volumes of well selected books, and is now receiving more especial attention as the prosperity of the school is recognized as an established fact.
Beginning with a junior class of eight regular students, the two classes now number about 150, drawing their members chiefly from Missouri, but largely from neighboring and even distant States. The endowments have been much increased. Mrs. Hitchcock added another $10,000 and still larger sums were provided through the generosity of several mnem- bers of the faculty, whose long and distinguished service inight have excused them from giving further proof of their devotion. The income from these and other endowments, the free use of the building, the nominal compensation received by most of the faculty, coupled with the increased tuition by reason of the larger attendance, have placed the school upon a sound basis, from which it may expect not only to pursue the work as orig- inally planned, but to constantly enlarge and perfect its usefulness. In the course of thirty years the Advisory Board lias undergone many changes. Composed as it was of men ripe in years, experience and honors, many of them had soon to make room for younger forces. But the standard of the Board has never changed. It could not have been higher; it was never permitted to sink lower. The most eminent men active in the administration of the law within this State, from the Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to the practitioner at the bar, still constitute this Board, as may be judged from the following list of members :
DAVID J. BREWER, Justice of U. S. Supreme Court. SAMUEL TREAT, LL. D., U. S. District Judge (retired) . SHEPARD BARCLAY, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri. WARWICK HOUGH, late Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri. SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON, late Judge of St. Louis Court of Appeals. WILLIAM H. BIGGS, Justice of St. Louis Court of Appeals. HENRY W. BOND, Justice of St. Court of Appeals. R. A. BAKEWELL, late Judge of St. Louis Court of Appeals.
DANIEL DILLON, late Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court. LEROY B. VALLIANT, Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court. JACOB KLEIN, Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court.
44
THE HISTORY OF THE BENCH AND BAR OF MISSOURI.
JAMES E. WITHROW, Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court.
DANIEL D. FISHER, Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court.
J. GABRIEL WOERNER, late Judge of St. Louis Probate Court. ELMER B. ADAMS, Judge of U. S. District Court. WILBUR F. BOYLE, late Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court. GEORGE W. LUBKE, late Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court. JAMES A. SEDDON, late Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court. JOHN W. NOBLE, Ex-Secretary of the Interior.
HENRY S. PRIEST, late U. S. District Judge.
ROBT. F. WALKER, Ex-Attorney-General of Missouri.
HORATIO D. WOOD, Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court.
EDWARD C. KEHR,
ARBA N. CRANE,
TRUMAN A. POST, HUGO MUENCH,
JAMES TAUSSIG,
ELENIOUS SMITH,
JOHN W. DRYDEN,
JAMES P. DAWSON,
EDWARD CUNNINGHAM, JR.,
DAVID GOLDSMITH,
GEORGE H. SHIELDS,
JOHN A. HARRISON,
JOHN P. ELLIS,
CHARLES S. TAUSSIG,
CHAS. CLAFLIN ALLEN,
GARLAND POLLARD,
JOHN M. HOLMES,
WELLS H. BLODGETT,
HENRY A. KENT,
E. T. ALLEN,
JAMES P. MAGINN,
JOHN F. LEE,
LEVERETT BELL,
JOHN D. DAVIS,
EDWARD T. FARISH,
JAMES L. BLAIR,
EVERETT W. PATTISON,
WILLIAM B. HOMER,
JOHN E. MCKEIGHAN,
SILAS B. JONES,
FRED W. LEHMANN, THOS. K. SKINKER.
Of the regard for the school, or of the active and generous interest of the bar in its success, it need only be said that rarely, and then only for the best of reasons, has a mem- ber of the Advisory Board declined to assume the arduous labor of preparing and passing upon the examination papers assigned to him for the purpose of testing the fitness of proposed graduates.
The changes in the faculty have been equally great. Having successfully started the department, Mr. Hitchcock, overtaxed by this and other work, was compelled to retire for a time from active duty. He was succeeded as Dean in 1870 by George M. Stewart, Esq., but returning in 1871, he was made provost, with Mr. Stewart as acting Dean and in this capacity exercised active control over the school for the next seven years. In 1878 an entire reorganization of the faculty was had. Henry Hitchcock was again made Dean, and with three other members of the faculty assumed the entire responsibility of the work. Finding that an average of 170 lectures a year, together with the other duties of the Dean's office, seriously interfered with his professional work, he resigned as Dean in 1881. William G. Hammond, an eminent jurist of national reputation, at that time Dean of the Law School of the Iowa State University, took his place and occupied it with great distinction until 1893. William S. Curtis, a graduate of the school, was then selected and holds the position now. Under his administration the school has shown the most decided development in every respect.
45
ST. LOUIS LAW SCHOOL.
Excluding those already named and the present faculty, there have been active as teachers during the thirty years the following: John M. Krum, Samuel Reber, John W. Noble, John F. Dillon, George A. Madill, G. A. Finkelnburg, George W. Cline, J. Gabriel Woerner, Chester H. Krum, Francis Preston Blair, Rochester Ford, Eugene C. Tittmann, George W. Lubke, D. D. Fisher and Chas. Claflin Allen. Of these Judge George A. Madill has the distinction of having taught Real Property for twenty-five years, from 1869 to 1894, and Equity for most of that time, throughout with that signal ability and fidelity which characterize all his work. No resignation froin the faculty has ever been accepted with more universal regret.
Henry Hitchcock resigned from the faculty in 1884. During seventeen years, while occupying the position of Dean and afterwards as lecturer, he devoted his eminent ability as a lecturer to strengthen an institution which lie had been so largely instrumental in call- ing into existence.
G. A. Finkelnburg has been a member of the faculty for nineteen years. He now limits himself to a short course on Constitutional Law, but for fifteen years as lecturer on Contracts and Bills and Notes, he was one of the chief supports of the institution, uniting in a rare degree the regard of his colleagues and the affection of his students. Much might be said of the work of these men, as of Treat, Reber, Martin and others, but here as elsewhere their work will speak for itself.
At present the faculty is composed as follows :
WINFIELD S. CHAPLIN, LL. D., Chancellor of Washington University.
WILLIAM S. CURTIS, LL. B., Dean of the Law Faculty.
RODERICK E. ROMBAUER (Ex-Justice St. Louis Court of Appeals),
Professor, Real Property Law and Equity.
AMOS M. THAYER, LL. D. (Judge of United States Circuit Court of Appeals) , Professor, Law of Contracts and Commercial Law.
GUSTAVUS A. FINKELNBURG, A. B., Lecturer, Constitutional Limitations.
JAMES O. BROADHEAD, LL. D., Lecturer, International Law.
FREDERICK N. JUDSON, LL. D., Lecturer, Constitutional Law.
CHARLES NAGEL, LL. B., Lecturer, Corporations.
PENDLETON TAYLOR BRYAN, LL. B., Lecturer, Torts and Negligence.
EDWARD C. ELIOT, LL. B., Lecturer, Sales and Bailments.
F. A. WISLIZENUS, LL. B., Lecturer, Administration.
I. H. LIONBERGER, A. M., Lecturer, Statute of Limitations and Statute of Frauds.
PAUL F. COSTE, LL. B., Lecturer, Agency.
EDWARD S. ROBERT, LL. B., Lecturer, Evidence.
LEE SALE, LL. B., Lecturer, Partnership.
CHARLES P. JOHNSON, A. M.,
C. O. BISHOP, LL. B.,
Lecturers, Criminal Law.
JACOB KLEIN, LL. B. (Judge of St. Louis Circuit Court) , Lecturer, Advanced Class.
The regular professors are the Dean and Judges Thayer and Rombauer; they are sup- ported by the corps of lecturers named.
With all the changes spoken of, the general purposes and methods of the school alone have remained the same. With the exception of the Dean, every teacher is engaged in the administration or practice of the law. It is believed that experience has completely vin-
46
THE HISTORY OF THE BENCH AND BAR OF MISSOURI.
dicated the opinion that the students must be benefited by such a system. The teachers are left to pursue their own methods; but in the main it may be said that text books are relied upon, cases being liberally used by way of illustration. Pure lecturing is rarely employed. Generally, if not universally, students are expected to be prepared for oral examination upon subjects embraced within assignments previously made. Entrance to the junior class is conditioned upon certain qualifications named. The senior class cannot be entered unless a written examination in all junior studies has been satisfactorily miade. Before a senior is permitted to apply for a degree, he must present a written thesis upon an assigned subject, and he must take a written examination in every study of the two years' course, before the respective professor. If this has been satisfactorily complied with he is turned over to the Advisory Board, who subject him to the final written examination in every study taught in the school. If successful, here the Advisory Board recommend him for the degree, which, if conferred, entitles him, by act of the Legislature, to admission to any bar within the State. This Advisory Board is a marked feature of the school. It has a twofold advantage. It assigns the responsibility for judging the work to an independent and unquestionably competent body of men, and it gives the bar a direct interest in the labors of the school, and in the men who aspire to its membership. Here, too, experience seems to have equally verified the predictions of the founders of the school. Other features of the school are the following: The tuition is placed at the very reasonable sum of $80 a year, and there are three free scholarships for each class. The course as yet embraces only two years, although the lectures now provided for the advanced class, may well be expected to develop the course into one of three years. The lecture hours are placed before 10 a. m. and after 4 p. m., so as to make it as convenient as possible for those who desire to combine the practical experience of a law office with school work, and for those who are under the necessity of earning a livelihood while attending school. So well recognized is this plan that in many instances business houses, law offices and even courts have been known to take its requirements into account. It should be said, however, that students who are otherwise employed, require three years to complete the course. Then the school has a system of moot courts well calculated to prepare the student for the practical experience at the bar. And finally, it offers a prize of $50 for the best thesis sub- mitted by an applicant for a degree at the end of the term.
Such in general outline is the St. Louis Law School, established about thirty years ago, with confidence in the unselfish devotion of lawyers to their own profession, as its chief foundation. Endowments were valuable and even essential, but the real success of the school now rests and must always depend upon the readiness of judges and lawyers to develop and sustain the law by aiding in the preparation of those who are charged with its intelligent and just administration. The friendship and support of the profession, so essen- tial to success, now finds a double guaranty in the fact that a large proportion of the bar is composed of the alumni of the St. Louis Law School.
St. Louis, Mo., December, 1897.
ST. LOUIS LAW SCHOOL.
-------
PATENT LAWS OF UNITED STATES.
BY PAUL BAKEWELL.
'HE word "monopoly " in the sense of the original Greek words of which it is com-
T posed, means "exclusive sale." In this sense it would not exclude the private act of an individual by which he obtains control over the supply of any particular article. This latter abuse, however, is technically called "engrossing" by the lawyers, and the word "monopoly" is applied only to grants from the sovereign power.
It is an interesting fact that the whole modern system of patent law owes its origin to the struggles of the Commons of England against the abuse of monopolies, in the course of which the principle was firinly established that every citizen has the power to dispose of his own actions, provided he does not injure a fellow citizen, and that no power of King or magistrate, nothing but the authority of law, can restrain that freedom. It is the prose- cution of this principle into its consequences that has produced the system of govern- ment under which we live.
After a long struggle, the Statute of Monopolies was passed in 1623. This made all monopolies illegal, except such as might be granted by Parliament, or were in respect of new manufactures or inventions. This statute is still in force in England, and upon it is built up the entire English system of patents for inventions as well as our own. The Parliamentary power has never been abused to the granting of exclusive dealing to any individuals in the sense of the old monopolies of the Tudor and Stuart Kings. The quasi-monopolies of railway, gas and water companies are representatives of the ancient practice, but are for the good of the community at large.
The government of England in the time of Elizabeth is truly said by Hume (History of England, Vol. 4, Appendix 3) to have been as despotic as that of Turkey. The Sov- ereign possessed every power except that of taxation, and its exercise led to granting monopolies and was so abused as a means of revenue, that had no successful opposition to it been developed, England, the seat of commerce, would have had as little trade and manufacture as Morocco. Elizabeth granted patents for monopolies to her servants until almost everything but bread was reduced to a monopoly, and even bread was threatened. The sagacious Queen acceded to the humble petition of the Commons, seeing how odious monopolies had become, and whilst maintaining that the royal prerogative was unlimited and not to be examined, graciously cancelled the most oppressive of these patents, upon which the Speaker and the Commons, with tears, returned thanks in terms fit to be used only to Almighty God. The promises of the Queen were, however, very imperfectly carried out, and from 1565 to the end of her reign in 1603, angry debates on the sub- ject of monopolies arose in Parliament. Sir Edward Coke laid it down that by the ancient common law, the King could grant to an inventor a temporary monopoly of his inven- tion, but that grants in restraint of trade were illegal; and the law was so laid down in
(47)
48
THE HISTORY OF THE BENCH AND BAR OF MISSOURI.
Darcy vs. Allin, 11 Co. R., 84, Anno 1602, the first recorded case of monopolies. This decision was afterwards evaded, but it was never overruled, and is the law in England and America to-day. When the first Parliament of James I. was summoned, the ques- tion of monopolies was at once taken up with great energy, and, from that time until the despotic system inaugurated by the Tudors was finally overruled, the fight for free- dom originating in the debates upon monopolies was never abandoned until the people recovered their ancient rights in all respects. After James I. had in vain attempted to compromise the matter during twenty years by promises and orders in council, the Statute of Monopolies, making all monopolies illegal except patents for inventions and those granted by Parliament, was passed in 1623. Upon this excepting clause the system of patents for inventions is built up.
The statute prohibiting the grant of monopolies was passed in the twenty-first year of the reign of James I. During the earlier years of his reign the abuse which had reached its culminating point in Elizabeth's time still continued. As late as 1608 the King took the whole trade in alum into his hands, and made it the subject of monopoly; and though, in 1610, moved by the representations of the Judges, he published a book in which he says that monopolies are against the laws of the realm, and commands that no one move him to any grant thereof, the abuse continued in spite of petitions and protests. The statute of 21 Jac. 1, c. 3, was, however, merely declaratory of the common law already established by the courts in Pechey's case, 50 Edw. III (3 Inst. 181) ; Biscot's case, 15 Eliz. (3 Inst. 184), and Darcy vs. Allin (11 Co. R. 84). It was not because the royal prerogative as to monopolies had not been defined by the courts that these abuses arose in the Tudor reigns. The Wars of the Roses had so weakened the Barons and thrown all power into the hands of the Crown that English government had become a pure despotism, and for a century, at least, the Crown disregarded precedents and trampled upon Parliaments.
In a case decided in the year books, it is said that arts and sciences, which are for the public good, are greatly favored in law, and that the King, as chief guardian of the com- inon weal, has power and authority to grant many privileges for the sake of the public good, though prima facie they appear to be clearly against common right. It is also said in Darcy vs. Allin (Moore, p. 675), that Edward III., on the representation of some alder- inen, granted a commission to two friars and two aldermen to inquire whether a philo- sopher's stone might be made, and on their reporting the project feasible and not irreligious or iminoral, he granted to the two aldermen a patent of privilege that they and their assigns should have the sole right of making the philosopher's stone. The earliest form of tliese grants of privilege seems to have been that of exclusively conducting new trades or dealing in articles of commerce hithierto unknown. The prerogative was, however, early used in some cases as a means of raising money without resorting to Parliament for supplies.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.