HON. SIR DOUGLAS HAZEN, K.C.M.G., (Chief Justice of New Brunswick):

Your Excellency, My Lord, Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen :

I am not rising, as you may think, for the purpose of moving a vote of thanks to the distinguished representative of the American Bar Association to whom we have just listened with feelings of such great pleasure. I came very near saying instead of "the distinguished representative of the American Bar Association", for the reasons mentioned by our Chairman, "our distinguished fellow citizen" for Mr. Taft is, I think, perhaps as well known in Canada as he is in the United States (Applause). He has on many occasions addressed Canadian audiences. I have a very vivid recollection of one occasion some years ago, when I was a citizen of Ottawa, when I listened to an address which he made in this room to the members of the Canadian Club; and, while it is not by any means the only portion of his address which I remember, I distinctly remember how he told us a story of a man with a paper skull who unfortunately found himself in Tipperary, with very fatal consequences to himself. (Laughter). I think we might fairly claim, speaking of Mr. Taft and his relations to Canada, that it is perhaps in some measure due to his wisdom in seeking for several months of the year the breezes of Canada on the banks of the St. Lawrence, and particularly, I think, on the golf links of Murray Bay, that he owes so much of the good health and the clarity of mind which he possesses at the present time. (Applause).

To move a vote of thanks, however, I think is entirely unnecessary. In the language of an old and warm friend of mine who was fond of using Sesquipedalia Verba it would be almost a work of supererogation; for everyone today will carry home with him the greatest possible thankfulness in his heart to Mr. Taft for having come here at the invitation of the Canadian Bar Association, and the very greatest feelings of appreciation of the splendid address which we have all been so fortunate as to listen to this afternoon.

I hope that the motion that I am called upon to make may not in any sense be regarded as indicating a "parting of the ways"; not at least in the sense in which the now historical utterance of our friend the guest of today was used in the election campaign of 1911 (laughter) for it cannot be regarded in that direction-but it is a motion which, if carried-and I know it will carry by unanimous vote-will be in the direction of practical reciprocity and will be put in force and become effective without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate of the United States or of the Parliament of Canada. I understand that at a recent meeting of the American Bar Association, the President of the Canadian Bar Association, the members of that Association

and the members of the profession in Canada, had the honour done them of Sir James Aikins being elected an honorary member. (Applause). While the honour was undoubtedly due to Sir James in consequence of his distinguished public position and the fact that he, above all others, was responsible for the organization and the maintenance of the high standard of the Canadian Bar Association (applause), it was none the less a very great compliment to the members of the profession in Canada. I trust that the resolution I am going to propose will be regarded with favour by the members of the Bar of Canada and will be regarded in some sense as complimentary by the gentleman to whom it refers.

The motion is :

That the members of the Canadian Bar Association elect the representative of the American Bar Association here today to the position of honorary membership in the Association.

I deeply regret that I cannot add to that resolution a few words more which would make Mr. Taft a member of the Canadian Bar. Fortunately or unfortunately as it may be, however, he is not eligible as a member of the Canadian Bar, because he is not a British subject. But might I hope-perhaps it is not too optimistic a dream-might I hope that in the future, as time goes on and as the great superiority of our free institutions and free system of government becomes recognized by all men, that disability may be removed and that he, or his successor, may become a member of the Canadian Bar without that disqualification intervening.

I have very great pleasure, therefore, Mr. Chairman, in moving the resolution that Mr. Taft be elected an honorary member of the Canadian Bar Association. (Applause.)

The Resolution having been enthusiastically adopted, the Chairman said :

Mr. Taft, you have heard the very enthusiastic way in which this resolution has been received, and I have very much pleasure, on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, in presenting you with honorary membership in this Association.

Mr. TAFT: I thank you, Sir.

The meeting closed with the singing of the National Anthem.

FIRST DAY (AFTERNOON SESSION)

At 3.30 p.m., the meeting was called to order and, at the request of the President, Mr. L. G. McPhillips, K.C., VicePresident for British Columbia, took the Chair.

CHAIRMAN: I will call upon Dr. MacRae to present the report on Legal Education by the sub-committee on a standard curriculum in the common Law provinces.

DR.MACRAE: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Before presenting the report of the sub-committee on Standard Curriculum, it may be convenient to recall very briefly the bistory of the main Committee on Legal Education and how the subcommittee on Standard Curriculum came to be appointed.

It was at the meeting of the Association held at Toronto in 1916 that a Committee was first appointed to prepare a report on Legal Education. At the next meeting of the Association held in Montreal in 1918, that Committee reported and its report received considerable discussion and was referred back to the Committee or to a newly-constituted Committee for further consideration.

At the meeting of the Association held at Winnipeg in 1919 the Committee again presented a report, described by the Chairman as a remodelled version of the report previously presented at the Montreal meeting in 1918. That report, varied in some respects by the vote of the Winnipeg meeting, was adopted at that meeting and contains the recommendations of this Association on the subjects with which the report deals. That report, in the form in which it was finally adopted, is to be found on pages 150-152 of the printed report of the 1919 Proceedings. Perhaps, for the present purpose, it would be sufficient to say that one of the clauses of that report as adopted at the Winnipeg called for the appointment of a sub-committee to prepare and present a standard carriculum to this meeting.

The Sub-committee, having been appointed in that way, addressed itself to the task assigned to it and has drawn up the report, copies of which have been distributed.

As indicated in that report, the sub-committee met at Montreal on the 2nd of January last, the members present being Dr. Lee, Mr. T. D. Brown and myself.

As regards general observations on the report, there are two matters only on which I would observe briefly, first the POSSIBILITY and secondly the DESIRABILITY of framing a standard curriculum. Both these things are implied in the mandate given to the sub-committee. As regards the POSSIBILITY of framing a standard curriculum, I wish merely to say that so far as the experience of the sub-committee went in their actual attempt to frame a curriculum, it was in accord with the view expressed by Dr. R. B. Bennett last year as Chairman of the session on legal education. Dr. Bennett is reported, at page 17 of last year's Proceedings, as saying:

"It has seemed to me that it would be possible to frame a curriculum of studies which would be applicable to all the English speaking provinces of the Dominion. I do not think there is such a wide difference in practice or in law, certainly not in the foundation of the law in the different Provinces, as would make it impossible to frame such a course.'

The sub-committee encountered no wide difference in the law or in the practice of the different Provinces which would seem to make it impossible to frame a curriculum which, in the main and with certain optional variations, would be applicable to all the Common Law Provinces of the Dominion.

As to the DESIRABILITY of a standard curriculum, that too is implied in the mandate to the sub-committee. Among the reasons urged in favour of the desirability of a standard curriculum perhaps the reason that has received most emphasis thus far has been that it would facilitate the transfer of students from one Province to another. But attention may be directed to another reason, closely related to the one mentioned and hardly of less importance, namely that it would facilitate the transfer of practitioners from one Province to another. For, when any Bar is asked to admit a practitioner from another Bar, perhaps the most substantial question on which it seeks information is the question of the legal training of the applicant. If the legal curriculum were more or less uniform in all the Provinces, it is obvious that need of inquiry as to the candidate's legal knowledge would be eliminated.

I may be permitted to digress here to say that uniformity of legal curriculum alone should not remove all barriers to transfer of practitioners. There should also be uniformity in the preliminary education required before a student enters upon the legal curriculum. For there would be obvious unfairness in allowing a student to enter upon and complete even a standard curriculum in a Province where the preliminary requirements for admission to study were low and then to transfer to a Province where the preliminary requirements were those approved by the Association. In that connection I would direct attention to the bottom of page 1 of the present report and the warning conveyed by Manitoba and Nova Scotia. It is there stated:

"Another point was the importance of maintaining a high standard of attainment and in particular of keeping up the level for the entrance requirements. It was pointed out that students from other Provinces seeking to transfer to the Manitoba Law School might experience disappointment if the preliminary requirements of the Province in which they had commenced their studies did not come up to the standard exacted by the Law Society of Manitoba from the students of the Province, and Dean MacRae drew attention to the Nova Scotia entrance re

quirements which had for some time past called for a standard equal to the educational standing of a student at the end of the first year of the Arts Course. In regard to both these matters the sub-committee found itself in cordial agreement with the views expressed."

Possibly this meeting may think it advisable to make some recommendation on this point.

Another argument for the desirability of uniform curriculum is that uniformity of training would make for uniformity of jurisprudence in the different Provinces and would increase the reportable value and usefulness of decisions of one Province in the courts of all the other Provinces.

But perhaps the most weighty argument of all is that a curriculum of respectable standard uniformly adopted in all the Provinces would tend to establish on a creditable level the standards of the Canadian Bar as a whole.

One other point of a general nature is that mentioned on page 2 of the printed report, namely that the sub-committee did not try to frame a rigid curriculum which should be prescribed for universal acceptance. Their thought was rather of a standard sufficiently elastic to permit of its adoption with optional variations by all the Provinces.

Turning to the curriculum suggested in the printed report I might say that the two main questions involved in its framing were, first, what subjects should be included, and, secondly, in what order should they be studied. Involved with each of these questions was the question of the scope and content of each subject.

Taking up the subjects recommended for the first year, you will observe what they are as given on page 2 of the report. Now, I think that it might facilitate consideration of the report if, instead of my going over these and commenting on them in detail, we simply took up the subjects suggested for the first year and invited questions from the meeting as to the views of the members on the subjects that are there recommendedif that meets with your approval, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is probably the better way to do it, gentlemen. Any discussion on the first year subjects?

MR. LUDWIG (Toronto): Might it not be better before you deal with that to see what the view of the meeting is with regard to the requirements of a person who desires to enter as a law student? Here the recommendations appear to be that a first year course in Arts should have been taken before he could enter.

Dr. MACRAE: In answer to Mr. Ludwig, I would say that we considered that as having been recommended and acted upon at Winnipeg last year. If you have the printed proceed