the opportunity to grade on their penmanship, orthography and composition as well as their knowledge of the subject.

Some ludicrous answers have been elicited: One question propounded was, "Define lateral support?" One embryo counselor, who had been in the active practice, said: "It is the right which the wife has to a support from her husband." True, but not accurate, as the commission thought, looking from a legal standpoint. When asked to give the conditions under which a dying declaration may be admitted as evidence, one young man said: "First, the party making it must have been dead when he said it." To the credit of the boys be it said such breaks were few and far between.

For the protection of the examiners we suggest that section 2 of the act is indefinite, in that it fails to fix the rule by which they can determine whether or not the applicant is possessed of "a general education substantially equivalent to that obtained by the completion of a common or grammar school course of study and shall possess a fair knowledge of the subjects of history, literature and civil government." The commission might be required to take a special course before it could ascertain if another possessed these prescribed qualifications, for be it remembered that they were all admitted when to do so required only the ability to tell a story well and to deal himself not less than two pairs. The law seems to be fairly complete and will undoubtedly result in great good to the profession.

The subject of legal ethics is one of the required branches for examination. The commission in casting about for a code found one, which is deemed as nearly perfect as any extant, in the Alabama reports. A copy is herewith transmitted and made a part hereof, with the earnest recommendation that it be adopted by this Association and that our Supreme Court be requested to pass a resolution commending it to the bar and order it printed in the back of the official volume of reports.

By the next meeting the law will have been tested more

thoroughly, and if amendments are needed they can then be recommended.

Three of the members of the committee are members of the commission appointed by the Supreme Court, hence this report deals exclusively with the workings of and under the new law.

Respectfully,

W. H. MILLER, Chairman,

HY. D. ASHLEY,

W. T. RAGLAND,

W. C. RUSSELL,

JNO. A. BLEVINS.

Mr. Ashley: Mr. President, I may be permitted to add that when I was appointed on that commission, the subjects for examination were divided and the subject of "Legal Ethics" fell to me. Other than Judge Asher's book there is little literature on the subject, but we discovered in an old Alabama Report a Code of Legal Ethics, and as the young men who are called to the Bar usually have high ideals it would certainly be an advantage if the professional standard were in some way available to them. The commission was very

anxious that this Code should be adopted by the Association. I do not like to trespass upon your patience, but it would not take very long to read it. Referred to a committee it would not be acted upon until next year and I am sorry to say that my experience with committees is that we might not get any action then. The code has been submitted to a good many of the members of this body and has by them been approved. It would take perhaps fifteen minutes to read it.

The President: I appreciate the importance of your suggestion, but we are in this situation: Judge Wilfley has come here to deliver an address on the Administration of Justice in the Far East, and while doubtless there would be no objection to the reading of the Code at this time but for the fact that Judge Wilfley's duties at Washington require his presence there to-morrow or the next day, anyway just as

soon as he can get there, in order that he may receive his instructions from the Department of Justice, and if your matter can be delayed until some later time I think it would perhaps be better.

Mr. Ashley: I myself am compelled to leave this evening. I might read it at the termination of Judge Wilfley's address. I am glad to give way, but I am very earnest about this matter, very desirous that there may be a Code of Legal Ethics to which the young man entering the profession may

turn.

The President: Mr. L. R. Wilfley went away from Missouri a few years ago a young lawyer of high standing, active, energetic and ambitious, and entering the service of the government, became attorney-general in the Philippines, and when the act was passed by the Congress at the last session creating an American Court in China, he was named as judge, the first we have ever had of this Court in China, the jurisdiction and powers of which I have outlined in my address read this morning.

Gentlemen of the Missouri Bar Association, I take pleasure in introducing to you Judge L. R. Wilfley, of the United States District Court of China, who will address you on the Administration of Justice in the Far East. (See appendix, p. 148.)

Mr. Ashley: I deem it of very great importance and will ask your careful attention to this Code of Ethics, which I think is temperate, and cannot be seriously criticized:

PROPOSED CODE OF LEGAL ETHICS.

DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS TO COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS.

1. RESPECT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS.-The respect enjoined by law for courts and judicial officers is exacted for the sake of the office, and not for the individual who administers it. Bad opinion of the incumbent, however well founded, cannot excuse the withholding of the respect due the office while administering its functions.

2. CRITICISMS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.-The proprieties of the judicial station in a great measure disable the judge from defending himself against the strictures upon his official conduct. For this reason, and because such criticisms tend to impair public confidence in the administration of justice, attorneys should, as a rule, refrain from published criticism of judicial conduct, especially in reference to causes in which they have been of counsel, otherwise than in courts of review, or when the conduct of a judge is necessarily involved in determining his removal or continuance in office.

3. USING PERSONAL INFLUENCE ON THE COURT.— Marked attention and unusual hospitality to a judge, when the relations of the parties are such that they would not otherwise be extended, subject both judge and attorneys to misconstruction, and should be sedulously avoided. All attempts to gain special personal consideration and favor of a judge are disreputable.

4. DEFENDING THE COURT AGAINST POPULAR CLAMOR. -Courts and judicial officers, in the rightful exercise of their functions, should always receive the support and countenance of attorneys against unjust criticism and popular clamor; and it is the duty of an attorney to give them his moral support in all proper ways, and particularly by setting a good example in his own person of obedience to law.

5. CANDOR AND FAIRNESS.-The utmost candor and fairness should characterize the dealings of attorneys with the courts and with each other. Knowingly citing as authority an overruled case, or treating a repealed statute as in existence; knowingly misquoting the language of a decision or text book; knowingly misquoting the contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness or the language or argument of opposite counsel; offering evidence which it is known the court must reject as illegal to get it before the jury under guise of arguing its admissibility and kindred practices, are deceits and evasions unworthy of attorneys.

6. DISPLAY OF TEMPER.-One side must always lose the case, and it is not wise or respectful to the court for at

torneys to display temper because of an adverse ruling.

7. TREATMENT OF WITNESSES AND PARTIES TO THE CAUSE.-Witnesses and suitors should be treated with fairness and kindness. When essential to the ends of justice to arraign their conduct or testimony, it should be done without villification or unnecessary harshness. Fierceness of manner and uncivil behavior can add nothing to the truthful dissection of a false witness' testimony and even rob deserved strictures of proper weight.

8. ATTITUDE TOWARD THE JURY.-It is the duty of the court and its officers to provide for the comfort of jurors. Displaying special concern for their comfort and volunteering to ask favors for them while they are present should be avoided by attorneys. Such intervention of attorneys, when proper, ought to be had privately with the court, whereby there will be no appearance of fawning upon the jury nor ground for ill feeling of the jury towards the court or opposite counsel if such requisitions are denied. For like reasons, one attorney should never ask another in the presence of the jury to consent to its discharge or dispersion; and when such a request is made by the court, the attorneys, without indicating their preference, should ask to be heard if the jury withdraws.

9.

CONVERSING PRIVATELY WITH JURORS.-An attor ney ought never to converse privately with jurors about the case, and must avoid all unnecessary communication even as to matters foreign to the cause, both before and during the trial. Any other course, no matter how blameless the attor ney's motives, gives color to the imputing of evil designs, and often leads to scandal in the administration of justice.

DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS TO CLIENTS.

10. How FAR AN ATTORNEY MAY GO IN SUPPORTING HIS CLIENT'S CAUSE.-Nothing has been more potential in creating a pandering to popular prejudice against lawyers as a class, and in withholding from the profession the full measure of public esteem and confidence which belong to the