J>BuZ -fie 
 
 Northwestern University Law School 
 
 (UNION COLLEGE OF LAW) 
 
 I 
 
 Endowment and Building Fund 
 1919-1920 
 
 
ihe UBRWW of toe 
 W1AR 1 o 1939 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 
 LAW SCHOOL 
 
 (Union College of Law) 
 
 Endowment and Building Fund 
 
 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ALUMNI ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
 
 1. The veteran School to which we owe our start in the legal 
 profession has reached a point of usefulness and high 
 repute which marks it as one of the solid institutions of the 
 country, radiating its powerful influence from this com¬ 
 munity in all directions throughout the Nation. We are 
 justly proud of it. As a vital center of progressive ideas it 
 stands second to none. But the perpetuity of this charac¬ 
 ter must be guaranteed, beyond the fluctuating contingen¬ 
 cies of annual tuition fees. Its work must be freed from 
 the incubus of the annual deficit, which now makes the 
 continuance of the School activities dependent upon such 
 largess as can be spared each year from the general over¬ 
 head income of the University. And the plans which its 
 able Faculty have matured for enlarged service to the 
 profession and the community must be supplied with 
 ample means for that fruition which is in present condi¬ 
 tions wholly impracticable. 
 
 2. The time has now arrived when this perpetual guarantee 
 must be established for the continuation of the Law 
 School’s multifold beneficent activities,—and this in the 
 interest not merely of the University, but of the commun¬ 
 ity, the State, and the Nation. 
 
 
3. This perpetuity can only be effected by obtaining for the 
 School 
 
 (a) A sum of money which will give it a permanent 
 fire proof building of its own, to house safely its invaluable 
 library, and to afford space for its necessary work. 
 
 (b) An endowment fund which by the income will 
 support the numerous activities—the fruition of all its 
 recent ideas and inventions—necessary for contributing its 
 part to the professional and social welfare of the com¬ 
 munity. 
 
 These activities include (a) a laboratory of applied 
 criminal science, (b) a bureau of legislative research, (c) 
 a legal hospital clinic, (d) a department of comparative 
 law (including Latin-American Law), (e) the mainten¬ 
 ance of the twoi professional journals edited from the 
 School, (f) a department of law office co-operation (analo¬ 
 gous to the forward movement in engineering education), 
 and (g) a few additional measures already well tested and 
 fully planned, but impracticable without some additional 
 expense. The establishment of chairs for the above 
 activities is needed. 
 
 The Law School’s requirements for its degree are now 
 exceeded by none, and equalled by only a few, of Ameri¬ 
 can law schools. Hence, an additional reason for worthily 
 fulfilling the foregoing purposes. 
 
 4. For the first of these purposes, a sum of $500,000 is the 
 minimum (to cover land, building, and maintenance). 
 
 For the second, the income of $1,000,000 is the mini¬ 
 
 mum. 
 
5. Therefore, Be It Resolved , That we heartily commend the 
 plan to raise the combined sum by June 1, 1920. 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 Thomas M. Hoyne, ’66 
 Frank J. Loesch, 74 
 Frank H. Scott, 78 
 Edgar B. Tolman, ’82 
 Sigmund Zeisler, ’84 
 Will H. Clark, ’85 
 Frank O. Lowden, ’87 
 Otto R. Barnett, ’88 
 Chancellor Jenks, ’88 
 Lessing Rosenthal, ’91 
 Mitchell D. Follansbee, ’93 
 George A. Mason, ’94 
 Frederick P. Vose, ’94 
 Hubert E. Page, ’95 
 Carl R. Latham, ' 95 
 Charles M. Foell, ’96 
 Roswell B. Mason, ’97 
 Henry C. Hall, ’97 
 Charles A. Koepke, ’99 
 
 Chicago, June, 1919 
 
 Charles B. Elder, ’99 
 Chas. Lederer, ’01 
 Charles M. Thomson, ’02 
 Abel Davis, ’02 
 Hayes McKinney, ’03 
 Thomas G. Deering, ’03 
 Walter H. Jacobs, ’04 
 F. Harold Smith, ’05 
 Frederic Burnham, ’05 
 Chas. O. Rundall, ’06 
 Morton H. Eddy, ’06 
 Roy W. Hill, ’07 
 Orville J. Taylor, ’08 
 Lewis F. Jacobson, ’08 
 Ralph R. Hawxhurst, ’09 
 Melvin M. Hawley, ’09 
 Theodore Schmidt, ’09 
 Ernest Palmer, ’10 
 Chas. J. Wendland, ’10 
 
Oscar D. Stern, ’10 
 J. Ralph Tascher, ’11 
 George D. Smith, ’11 
 Fred Thulin, ’12 
 Ira E. Westbrook, ’12 
 Perry Patterson, ’13 
 Raymond Waite, ’13 
 Ralph R. Obenchain, ’14 
 Homer H. Cooper, ’14 
 Arthur W. Nelson, ’14 
 
 J. Wallace Thomson, ’14 
 Junius C. Scofield, ’15 
 Ralph D. Shanesy, ’15 
 Robert McCormick Adams, ’16 
 Edward N. Maher, ’16 
 Allen E. Denton, ’16 
 George H. Grear, ’16 
 Roy M. McKerchar, ’16 
 Paul E. Price, ’17 
 Omar P. Stelle, ’17 
 
Northwestern University Building 
 Chicago, June, 1919 
 
 My Dear Hubbard: 
 
 You inquire why the Law School is now asking for this Million-and-a- 
 Half fund. I will tell you. 
 
 It is simply because the time has come, both for the school and for the 
 community and the Nation, when the work to be done needs that sum. It is 
 the right and necessary thing for us to do the work; the community also 
 expects it; without the funds the work cannot be done; and we have every 
 confidence, therefore, that the friends of the School will obtain it, and will 
 thus fulfill our destiny for us. 
 
 But why, you ask, must it be a Million-and-a-Half ? Simply because 
 that is the least sum that will do the work. 
 
 Let me specify. 
 
 1. In the first place, the building. The Library is under daily risk 
 of a destructive fire, in an old building, located amidst the most combustible 
 surroundings. Every year, for ten years past, up and down Lake Street, in 
 our vicinity, one or two ancient buildings have been gutted by fire. Bv good 
 luck we have escaped, so far. A conflagration would destroy all the work 
 of the last twelve years in building up the most unique Law Library in this 
 country, outside of Harvard University and Congress. No one other law 
 library, I think, has served and is serving so fruitfully to promote legal re¬ 
 search. Much of its treasure would be irreparably gone,—drawn as it is 
 from unique collections that have come on the market, and from constant 
 delving for thousands of special titles here and there. To allow it to remain 
 longer as defenseless as it is, would be excusable only on the supposition that 
 we have asked, and our friends have been unable to give, the necessary pro¬ 
 tection. And that is what justifies our asking now. 
 
 Then, again, in mere quantity of books, it is too great for the present 
 space. We have filled with its books all the corridors, the professors’ rooms 
 and Booth Hall; we have stored books in the basement, and almost every¬ 
 where else,—except the fire-escapes. And yet the shelves are bursting with 
 books, and the last yard of space has been found. So that here alone would 
 be plenty of reason for seeking a new home for the Library, even if there 
 were not pressing need for fire-protection. 
 
Besides this, our other activities are cramped for space, and are (literally) 
 pushed to the wall. With six resident members of the faculty, two journals 
 of legal science edited in our quarters, crowded study-rooms, and library 
 tables, we are everywhere in need of twice the space. 
 
 A new building is the only solution. 
 
 2. And in the next place, our work. 
 
 Now here I must ask you to step back and look at the situation in a 
 large perspective. 
 
 The Law has grown rapidly in the last twenty-five years,—like a youth 
 with his old suit. Or, rather, the community and its legal affairs have grown, 
 and the Law is the old suit. 
 
 But before we go too far with that metaphor, let me put it this way: 
 The Law is a social science; everybody is now beginning to realize'that. 
 It means that Law has to be tested, like other applied sciences, by what it 
 can do for the community. Law is not simply a dogma, coming to us by 
 some divine or imperial fiat. Law is a tool. And so the natural test which 
 we are entitled to put it to, from time to time, is, Does it work? And the 
 meaning of the great ferment, increasing of late years, and in almost all parts 
 of the law and the community, is simply that this is one of the long periods, 
 which come every so often, when the issue is being raised, for Law, all along 
 the line, does it work? 
 
 Now mostly it does work. To suppose that all or most of the Law is at 
 fault and needs to be changed is absurd. But the difficulty is that the com¬ 
 munity does not know in advance, and the profession does not know, what 
 are the particular parts that might need change. And so the issue is capable 
 of being raised all along the line. And therefore, we, the profession, have to 
 be ready all along the line, to defend, if need be, and therefore to inquire 
 for the purpose of defending, or criticizing, if need be. We must study more 
 of the philosophy of the Law, and we must study more of the practical 
 operation of the different parts of the Law. We must, in short, be able to 
 give a reason for the faith that is in us, to forestall the quacks, the fanatics, 
 and the demagogues, and to lead in adequate reconstruction at necessary 
 points. All this signifies a new outlook and enlarged and improved methods 
 in legal education and research. 
 
 The truth is that the next two generations are going to be marked by 
 many new methods and new activities in legal research. And the University 
 
Law Schools must take the lead in guiding this, so that the now beginning 
 lawyers may be ready in their day of power. Our own Law School is par¬ 
 ticularly fitted, both by its traditions, its personnel, and its location, to under¬ 
 take to meet these new needs. It has indeed already undertaken to do so; 
 but further progress is impossible until adequate funds are provided. That 
 is why it is calling attention to the need now. 
 
 Just to show you that our plans are concrete and useful, and not merely 
 vague abstractions, I will mention some of them: 
 
 (1) The modern problems of Commercial, Industrial, and Corpora¬ 
 tion Law now looming so large (business combinations, public utilities, com¬ 
 mission administration of commerce, labor legislation, etc.) have received 
 as yet little or no recognition in the orthodox curriculum. A new chair must 
 be created to deal with them. 
 
 (2) The entire range of problems of Contemporary Legislation calls 
 for a vast amount of patient research, which only a University Law School is 
 qualified to undertake impartially. A chair must be provided to organize 
 the work of graduate and special students, and to set proper standards of 
 method. As an example of the work which the University Law Schools 
 ought long ago to have been initiating, I mention the admirable work of the 
 American Judicature Society in drafting model acts for judicial organization 
 and civil procedure. In France, the professors of the University of Paris 
 have organized a corps of legislative studies for the renovation of their 
 century-old Code; and this leadership by the universities is the natural method 
 for our own democratic country. Only thus can the innumerable proposals 
 of reform be scientifically guided and be kept out of the control of sciolists 
 and faddists. 
 
 (3) A laboratory cf Applied Criminal Science must be established. 
 The problem of crime, now more urgently than ever, calls for the coordination 
 of several branches of knowledge. Experts from the fields of law, psychology, 
 medicine, police, prisons, and sociology, must be brought together and their 
 work organized in continuous research under university direction. I want 
 to see a bureau of practical research where every young man would naturally 
 think of coming who aspired to be a prosecuting attorney, or was one already, 
 and desired to be well grounded in modern principles and methods. We 
 have ample personnel available; and the part taken by our School, in 1909, 
 on its Fiftieth Anniversary, in founding the American Institute of Criminal 
 Law and Criminology, justifies our undertaking this leadership in the future. 
 
(4) In the practice of law, the Clinic for graduate students is now 
 necessary, in law as in medicine. By combining the charitable methods of 
 the Legal Aid Societies with the system of the Law Schools, two needs would 
 he served, and in the best possible manner. The Bar Examiners and the 
 American Bar Association Committee have long favored a fourth year for 
 practice training; and a fourth year ol charitable legal practice, under the 
 management of a professor of practice, will fit the best graduates for practice 
 in the most efficient way. A committee of the Chicago Bar Association has 
 recently recommended precisely this method. Beginnings have been made 
 already in a few law schools; our own was the first. But until it can be 
 put on a graduate basis, no real progress is possible. For this purpose a new 
 chair is needed. No more important advance than this can be named for 
 American legal education and American justice. 
 
 (5) A chair of Comparative Law must be established. In these days 
 of extensive commercial intercourse with Latin-America, of financial rela¬ 
 tions with all of Europe and of some sort of world tribunal in prospect, a 
 pressure is found everywhere to know what the laws of these foreign coun¬ 
 tries are. We possess abundant library resources for such studies; and our 
 Gary Library’s initial step of providing materials has been followed, in some 
 degree, by a dozen law libraries East and West. But we have no chair for 
 instruction and research in those subjects. Young men are waiting to be 
 trained in that field. The German colonial commerce departments at Berlin 
 and Vienna long ago had schools in which foreign law could be studied. We 
 must prepare in the same way. 
 
 (6) The various branches of instruction in Jurisprudence, Legal His¬ 
 tory, and Philosophy of Law, must be enlarged. Most persons, I think, do 
 not realize that no judicious and substantial progress in law is possible with¬ 
 out first studying both the history and the philosophy of the subject. There 
 is an ever increasing demand for these by graduate students; and at least 
 one additional chair is indispensable. Our country and our profession have 
 hitherto almost wholly lacked this group of studies. Its lack in American 
 university law schools was the chief subject of criticism in the Continental 
 Professor Redlich’s recent report to the Carnegie Foundation on American 
 Legal Education. For the constructive legal thinking of the next two gen¬ 
 erations, a basis must be laid in the law school work with the young men 
 of today. 
 
7. The field of International Law will now require expansion, in the 
 researches and instruction of law schools. In the first place, the intricate task 
 of re-casting the traditional rules for war and peace demands new constructive 
 thinking. In the next place, the League of Nations idea, as an embryo form 
 of international government, will henceforth occupy a new place on the stage; 
 in fact, this Law School is already offering the first course of its kind in any 
 American law school, entitled “International Constitutional Law (League of 
 Nations).” 
 
 These concrete plans, my dear Hubbard (and others could be men¬ 
 tioned), must convince you that what we are aspiring to undertake, in our 
 expansion of work, is not a mere polite academic abstraction, but a real and 
 needed contribution to the urgent demands of today ,—a constructive service, 
 both scientific and practical. 
 
 And let me ask you, just here, if I have made it clear that we are not 
 regarding this enterprise in the fervent, excited spirit of “reformers.” That 
 is not our label at all. We are scientists; and we stick to the cold solid facts 
 of legal science. But we do maintain that Law is a practical science; that it 
 has to be constantly studying its own relation to the community’s needs; and 
 that a university body of experts in legal science must be constantly occupied 
 with that study, pursuing new methods of research for new needs. 
 
 Law renders just as real and beneficent a service to the community as 
 medicine; and for the work now facing it in the next two generations, it will 
 require endowed university funds, much more than any other department of 
 research or education; and the sjnnpathy which should be felt for those re¬ 
 quirements is quite as great in the one case as in the other. A man who 
 contributes to an endowed fund for university legal research is helping the 
 country,—helping to relieve the miseries and to advance the prosperities of 
 his fellows—just as much as by any other sacrifice he makes. 
 
 And an additional reason for believing that our School is worthy of this 
 support is that it now requires, both for its four-year course of law studies 
 and for entrance upon that course, a standard of attainment exceeded by no 
 other School and equalled only by a few. The resources now asked for are 
 needed to enable it to maintain that standard and that leadership. 
 
 And this is why we solicit your co-operation to enable the School to 
 fulfill the important task that is now pointed out by its traditions, its aspira¬ 
 tions, and its duty to this community, to the profession, and to the Nation. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 John H. Wigmore. 
 
I Iram nnq 
 
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 
 
 (UNION COLLEGE OF LAW) 
 
 ENDOWMENT AND BUILDING FUND 1919-20 
 
 THE NATIONAL FUTURE OF THE LAW SCHOOL 
 
 i ****** And now Mr. President, may I speak about 
 the Law School. 
 
 A new era is at hand. Dr. Hough has assumed the presi¬ 
 dency of the University. September will see our staff re¬ 
 stored, by the return of the two members who were absent 
 in the military service, and by the addition of a new member 
 to fill the place left by our lamented colleague Schofield. 
 
 Changing conditions confront the University and the Law 
 School, as well as the country at large, and Chicago. They 
 seem to unite in raising this question, which I have been 
 pondering of late: 
 
 Is there an opportunity for a law school located at 
 Chicago, as our own is and always has been, to render a 
 distinctive service to the Nation? Is it possible for North¬ 
 western University Law School (the old Union College 
 of Law, founded in 1859), to become in some respects the 
 most generally useful, and, therefore, the most beneficial, 
 institution of its kind in our land? 
 
 The question merits consideration. 
 
 I would not prophesy; but I should like to call atten¬ 
 tion to some aspects of the opportunity that may be at 
 hand. 
 
 An Easterner, ignorant of the Western spirit, and of 
 the traditions of this School and this University, would 
 smile at the audacity of the ambition to make this city of 
 
 (1). From a speech delivered by Professor CHARLES CHENEY HYDE, at the Annual 
 Banquet of the Alumni Association, in Chicago, June 16, 1919. 
 
ours the National center of any intellectual activity. And 
 he would hesitate long before sending his son West, to ex¬ 
 periment with what was being done here. A reason for his 
 reluctance would be the remoteness of Chicago from the 
 Atlantic seaboard, and its inability to enjoy visual and 
 physical contacts with European life and trade. He would 
 not believe that any university in a city so situated could 
 really feel the pulse of the outside world and understand 
 its highest aspirations and most powerful impulses. 
 
 This suggests one hard condition which a law school 
 here would have to meet well, in order to enjoy national 
 preeminence. It would need to be as closely in touch with 
 the legal or juridical thought of the outside world, espe¬ 
 cially European and Latin-American, as if it were located 
 in Boston or New York; and it would need to be even 
 closer in touch, because of its habitat in an inland city. 
 
 To overcome real prejudices (of which the possessors 
 are doubtless oftentimes unconscious) against even our own 
 central part of the West, there is required a definite unity 
 of effort, productive not only of individual work of the 
 highest order, but also of constructive plans of great national 
 worth, and which have not been devised and put into opera¬ 
 tion elsewhere. From Washington to Bangor there is still 
 the belief that in matters of science and art (as distinct 
 from trade) the soundest views and the surest progress are 
 rarely to be found beyond the reach of the Atlantic’s tide. 
 But the error of such a conclusion would be frankly ad¬ 
 mitted, if its falsity were proven to those who hold it. 
 
 There are to-day, in other fields, significant tokens of 
 the ambitions and possibilities of Chicago. In spite of the 
 existing advantages enjoyed by New York, an important 
 bank here is advertising in the current magazines the effort 
 to make Chicago the fiscal center of the international trade 
 of the United States. As you know, the cities of the Missis¬ 
 sippi Valley are linking themselves together in an association 
 
to transform that valley, from Lake Michigan to the Gulf, 
 into a vast artery of foreign and domestic commerce. In 
 other respects also, our horizon is not bounded by what is 
 known as the Central West. We have made peoples of 
 remote lands buy our beef. We have sold harvesting ma¬ 
 chinery and typewriters in the Orient. We have caused the 
 enlightened parents of Oregon to order baby-carriages by 
 mail from a Chicago Avenue concern. In matters of base¬ 
 ball we have always aspired to national fame, and have 
 even experienced grief when Chicago failed to produce a 
 team of world champions. 
 
 Are we then as lawyers less ambitious locally, in what 
 pertains to legal training? Are we content (I ask it most 
 seriously) to permit this Law School to drift into a minor 
 league, as it were, and merely hold its own among local 
 rivals? 
 
 Happily it is not to-day in such straits. But if we are 
 courageous enough to observe comparisons, which we are 
 bound to make with certain Eastern schools in the next 
 few years, we must acknowledge that the fulfilment of 
 really national aspirations by Northwestern University Law 
 School involves something more tangible and exacting than 
 mere academic dreams. We shall be outdistanced, if not 
 relegated permanently to a place of secondary rank, un¬ 
 less we take heroic steps and at once make a titanic effort 
 to offer to the students of the United States some distinctive 
 contributions of singular value and usefulness. 
 
 If an idea is sound, and is freshly applied for the com¬ 
 mon good, the place where it is developed is, of course, rel¬ 
 atively unimportant. Hull House has made as strong an 
 impression on the world as if it had been located on the 
 Bowery, instead of on Halsted Street. The Mayo brothers 
 did not need to go to New England in order to make effective 
 their surgical ministrations. 
 
If it be assumed that Chicago is not incapable of pos¬ 
 sessing the foremost American law school, what can we here 
 offer of such special excellence and positive value that stu¬ 
 dents will flock to us from every corner of the Union? “He 
 that would bring home with him the wealth of the Indies, 
 must carry the wealth of the Indies with him.” 
 
 Well, we have a great idea, in the first place, and we 
 have also the men to interpret it. 
 
 Hitherto, the best American law schools have generally 
 been content to teach embryo lawyers how to think legally, 
 and thereby fit them for private practice. There has been 
 little effort to do more. Nor has there been concern about 
 the function which students should undertake to fulfil as 
 lawyers, nor about their relationship as such to the State. 
 
 In our own School, however, by its recent action in 
 lengthening the course and broadening the curriculum, a 
 somewhat different stand has been taken. The School is 
 now capable of becoming a powerful agency for promoting 
 also the public welfare of the community. 
 
 This capacity fits well with the spirit of the times that 
 are upon us. As an apparent consequence of the war, men 
 and women, returning from military or civil service, feel 
 and declare that no occupation, however lucrative, seems to 
 be worth while, unless it has also some tangible connection 
 with the welfare of the State. There seems to be no zeal 
 for work which is solely for the personal or private gain of 
 the worker, whether he be a banker or an elevator-man or 
 a lawyer. This condition has given rise to the idea that the 
 chief function of a really great law school is to train men 
 to be capable of rendering primarily some public legal 
 service, whether for the City or the State or the Nation, and 
 to inspire them to be content with nothing less. 
 
 There should, of course, be no design to turn out men 
 less fitted for normal practice at the bar, or less ambitious 
 
for success there. But it is believed to be vitally important 
 that they should early realize that a career in law only par¬ 
 tially justifies itself unless it both fits and leads the practi¬ 
 tioner to be of direct public use. Knowledge of the law and 
 technical skill in its application make the possessor a trustee 
 for the public good. Very many of you here have known the 
 joy that comes from faithful performance of that trust. After 
 such an experience, you would surely regret to see your 
 Alma Mater fail to inspire younger classes with zeal to 
 render similar public legal service. 
 
 I doubt whether the alumni of any law school in this 
 country have yet met, in an assembly such as this, with a 
 definite resolve that their school be dedicated to work pri¬ 
 marily for the public good. The alumni who do so resolve 
 will have taken the initial step to give their School a solid 
 qualification for national esteem. Suppose our Law School 
 should solemnly adopt as its motto, “FOR THE PUBLIC 
 GOOD”? 
 
 We find the public need in the United States to-day ap¬ 
 pallingly complex and exacting. It is municipal, and yet 
 also nation-wide. It demands men who will take the time 
 to study oatiently legal history, administrative law, legal 
 philosophy, comparative law, criminology, colonial law, and 
 the laws of modern economic problems. It calls for those 
 who can render practical aid in contemporaneous legislation. 
 It seeks those familiar with that Roman Civil law and which 
 prevails in Continental Europe and in Latin-America. There 
 will be an increasing public demand for men proficient in 
 private and public international law. These demands merely 
 supplement the necessity for individuals who have under¬ 
 gone a thorough training in the law of contracts, torts, crimes, 
 evidence, property, constitutional law and equity. Yet it is 
 apparent that the student who has had this narrower training 
 still has far to go before he is fitted to respond well to what 
 the State calls for in certain fields. 
 
Again, the State will not deem of greatest value even 
 the institution offering the greatest variety of courses, unless 
 instruction in each be of the highest order and according to 
 the soundest methods. Our Law School will gain little 
 ground if it offers courses not taught by the strongest men 
 and in the best way. In order to ascertain what is the best 
 way, there needs to be searching re-examination of what are 
 supposed to be approved methods. To gain the benefit of 
 sound tests it seems important to cut loose from accepted 
 academic standards. At Northwestern University Law School 
 we cherish traditions of instruction which are more than 
 cheering memories. After the days of the late James B. 
 Thayer, no man in America gave a stronger course in consti¬ 
 tutional law than did our own beloved Henry Schofield. 
 His work remains an inspiration to those who were his col¬ 
 leagues and survive to follow him. 
 
 But how can a law school such as ours respond well and 
 with notable effectiveness to the various and severe demands 
 of the State? How can we assure a student who attains pro¬ 
 ficiency in a special field of law that public work will reward 
 his long and unremunerative toil? How can the Law School 
 bring together the State and the men and women trained to 
 serve it and longing to do so? 
 
 I believe that our Faculty now finds itself preeminently 
 fitted for the task, and zealous, moreover, to devote itself 
 to its fulfilment. We believe that among us are found, 
 in various shares of individual contribution, those who know 
 what the public interest requires and now to respond to its 
 every need. The task requires familiarity with the broad 
 technical problem; knowledge of the various methods by 
 which it may be solved; ability to establish the necessary 
 organization; and skill to insure symmetrical development of 
 the general plan. Most of all, it requires a passion for public 
 justice, and a longing to see the Law School dedicated to the 
 service of the State. These requirements, I firmly believe, 
 can be found in our ranks. 
 
But the Faculty can do little if left to themselves. They 
 may rejoice in the field that Chicago offers for a great law 
 school. They may devote their lives to the most exhaustive 
 research and to the best teaching, and to the effort to inspire 
 students with the loftiest aspirations; and may yet fail to 
 place the Law School where it ought to be. Yale, with its 
 school of jurisprudence; Columbia, with its widening curric¬ 
 ulum; or Harvard, with its high traditions; may still render 
 relatively insignificant, from a national point of view, what 
 these men undertake here. 
 
 The real hope of Northwestern University Law School 
 is the Alumni. It lies within their power, and within that 
 of you here to-night, to determine the future of the institu¬ 
 tion. You represent the graduates of some sixty years stand¬ 
 ing. No law school near us can turn to a body of such loyalty 
 and strength. Your power is sufficient, and your voice will 
 be decisive. If you believe that this institution can be and 
 ought to be the seat of the first law school in America, you 
 can give to it that distinction. If you believe that such a 
 school should, above all, be dedicated to public service, and 
 are determined that this institution shall be so dedicated, 
 you can make it possible for Northwestern University Law 
 School to be of highest usefulness to the United States. 
 
 Your determination to seize the opportunity will entail 
 no easy burden. Heavy drafts will be made on your time 
 and thought. Funds will have to be raised for endowment 
 and buildings. Doubtless an alumni advisory committee will 
 be needed, and will be impressed into active and constant 
 service. 
 
 Nevertheless, the opportunity is yours. It has seemed to 
 me to be one of such large possibilities and withal so in¬ 
 spiring, that I have had the greatest satisfaction in coming 
 from Maine expressly to attend this occasion and to bring 
 the matter to your attention. 
 
 For the privilege of doing so, I thank you heartily. 
 
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 
 
 ) 
 
 (Union College of Law) 
 
 ENDOWMENT AND BUILDING FUND 1919-20 
 
 FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT PLAN 
 
 Distribution of the Endowment Plan Fund 
 into Foundations 
 
 The plan adopted for raising the Endowment Fund, 
 to be at least $1,000,000, arranges for its distribution into 
 a number of chairs, or Foundations, each bearing a personal 
 name, and the income from each to be devoted to one of the 
 specific purposes mentioned in the “Letter to Hubbard” 
 (setting forth the need for the endowment). 
 
 Each of these Foundation sums is divided into a number 
 of aliquot parts, or shares. The Foundation sum will ordi¬ 
 narily be $100,000, divided into not less than two nor more 
 than twenty aliquot parts or shares (thus ranging between 
 $5,000 and $50,000 each). Those contributors who are able 
 to give sums of that amount will designate the Foundation 
 to which they desire the contribution to be applied. 
 
 The names to be selected for the respective Foundations 
 will be: 
 
 I. Eminent Deceased Teachers in the School. 
 
 II. Eminent Judges and Lawyers, having associa¬ 
 tions with the School in the past. 
 
 III. Deceased Graduates or members of the School. 
 
 IV. Distinguished Living Graduates. 
 
 V. Donors. 
 
 This method will have three advantages: 
 
1. It will worthily perpetuate, and keep in constant 
 living memory for future generations, the traditions of the 
 School’s greatness and the names of those who have helped 
 to make it what it is. 
 
 2. It will enable many donors, whose sacrifices have pro¬ 
 vided the most substantial portions of the endowment, to 
 associate their donations with individual names or specific 
 purposes which have for them the greatest interest. 
 
 3. By dividing the Foundations into shares, it will en¬ 
 able the foregoing purposes to be attained consistently with 
 each donor bearing no greater share than his ability permits. 
 The range of aliquot parts is adapted to all varieties of 
 amounts. 
 
 A tentative distribution of the several Foundations fol¬ 
 lows; comments and suggestions are invited before final de¬ 
 cision by the Committee: 
 
 I. Foundations in Honor of Eminent Deceased Teachers 
 in the School. 
 
 1. The Henry Booth Foundation, for 
 Jurisprudence and Leeal Philosophy. 
 
 (Two shares of $50,000 each).$100,000 
 
 2. The Lyman Trumbull Founda¬ 
 tion, for Legislative Research. 
 
 (Four shares of $25,000 each). 100,000 
 
 3. The Ha'rvey B. Hurd Foundation, 
 for Applied Criminal Science. 
 
 (Four shares of $25,000 each). 100,000 
 
 4. The James L. High Foundation, for 
 National Commercial Law. 
 
 (Five shares of $20,000 each). 100,000 
 
 5. The William Farwell Founda¬ 
 tion, for a Legal Clinic. 
 
 (Ten shares of $10,000 each). 100,000 
 
 6. The Henry Schofield Founda¬ 
 tion, for American Constitutional Law. 
 
 (Two shares of $50,000 each). 
 
 100,000 
 
7. The James B. Bradwell Foun¬ 
 dation, for the Publication of Legal Lit¬ 
 erature (Illinois Law Review, and Jour¬ 
 nal of Criminal Law and Criminology). 
 
 (Ten shares of $10,000 each). 100,000 
 
 8. The Henry W. Blodgett Foun¬ 
 dation, for International Constitutional 
 Law. 
 
 (Ten shares of $10,000 each). 100,000 
 
 9. The Charles C. Linthicum 
 Foundation, for General Law. 
 
 (Ten shares of $10,000 each). 100,000 
 
 10. The Nathan S. Davis Founda¬ 
 tion, for Applied Criminal Science. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each). 100,000 
 
 11. The John Marshall Harlan 
 Foundation, for General Law. 
 
 (Ten shares of $10,000 each). 100,000 
 
 II. Foundations in Honor of Eminent Judges and Lawyers 
 Associated with the School in the Past. 
 
 1. The Abraham Lincoln Founda¬ 
 tion, for Professional Ethics and Train- 
 
 ing. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each).$100,000 
 
 2. The Thomas Hoyne Foundation, 
 for General Law. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each). 100,000 
 
 3. The Thomas Drummond Foun¬ 
 dation, for General Law. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each). 100,000 
 
 4. The Wirt Dexter Foundation, for 
 General Law. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each). 100,000 
 
 5. The Oliver Wendell Holmes 
 Foundation, for Legal History. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each). 
 
 100,000 
 
6. The David Dudley Field Foun¬ 
 dation, for Legislative Research. 
 
 (Twenty shares of $5,000 each). 100,000 
 
 7. The Julius Rosenthal Foundation, for 
 General Law. 
 
 (Four shares of $25,000 each). 100,000 
 
 III. Foundations in Honor of Deceased Graduates or Mem¬ 
 bers of the School. 
 
 These Foundations will be of not less than $20,000 nor 
 more than $50,000 each, and the object may be one of those 
 above enumerated, or some other object specified by the 
 donors. Their number is not limited. All or a part of the 
 fund contributed by the members of a particular class may, 
 at the members’ request, be thus designated as a Founda¬ 
 tion in the name of their classmate. 
 
 IV. Foundations in Honor of Distinguished Living Grad 
 
 uates. 
 
 These Foundations will be of $100,000 each. They may 
 be formed, by consent of the donors, from the united con¬ 
 tributions of classmates or others. 
 
 V. Foundations in the Name of Donors. 
 
 Foundations of not less than $50,000 may receive the 
 family name of the donor, by vote of the Faculty, and may 
 be applied to any of the above enumerated purposes or to 
 a purpose designated by the donor. 
 
 Description of Names in the First Two Groups 
 
 In Leaflet 4, some brief notes call to memory a few salient 
 facts about the eminent men whose names have been tenta¬ 
 tively selected for the first two groups of Foundations. 
 
 Names in the Third and Fourth Groups of Foundations 
 
 Suggestions are invited, from all alumni, of names suit¬ 
 able for selection in the third and fourth groups. The names 
 suggested will be confidentially communicated to the re¬ 
 spective class committees. 
 
Northwestern University Law School 
 
 (UNION COLLEGE OF LAW) 
 
 A Brief Description 
 
 of the Names selected for Entitling the several 
 
 ENDOWMENT FOUNDATIONS 
 I. Names of Eminent Deceased Teachers in the School. 
 
 1. Henry Booth. First professor of law, 
 and first dean of the School; Judge of the 
 Cook County Circuit Court 1871-1877. He 
 was appointed professor in 1859, and retired 
 in 1901, emeritus, thus serving more than 
 forty years. At the time of his appointment 
 there were only three other law schools west 
 of the Alleghanies. 
 
 2. Lyman Trumbull. Professor of law 
 in the ’70s. He was United States Senator 
 from 1855 to 1871, and was one of those whose 
 vote saved President Johnson from impeach¬ 
 ment. 
 
 3. Harvey B. Hurd. Professor of law 
 from 1863 (with a short interval), until his 
 retirement in 1902, just forty years. He com¬ 
 piled the Illinois Revised Statutes of 1874; 
 drafted the Torrens Land Transfer Act of 
 1897, and was a pioneer in championing im¬ 
 proved methods of treating juvenile offend¬ 
 ers; he drafted the Juvenile Court Act of 
 1899, which has proved a model for other States and countries. 
 
4. James L. High. Professor of law in 
 the ’70s, and eminent as counsel in commer¬ 
 cial cases. His treatise on Injunctions, pub¬ 
 lished in 1873, placed him in the front rank 
 of American legal authors, and remained 
 the standard authority for a generation. 
 
 5. William Farwell. Professor of law 
 from 1880 to 1892, and secretary of the 
 School. 
 
 6. Henry Schofield. Professor of law 
 from 1901 to 1918. A pupil of Professor 
 James B. Thayer, and ultimately his equal 
 as a master of the subject, he stood out, after 
 Thayer’s death, as the greatest constitutional 
 scholar and thinker of his time. 
 
 7. James B. Bradwell. Lecturer in the 
 ’70s; judge of the Cook County Court 1861- 
 69; editor of the Chicago Legal News 
 (founded by his wife Myra Bradwell) from 
 1868 to 1907, and publisher for more than 
 thirty years of the standard biennial edition 
 of Hurd’s Revised Statutes of Illinois; this 
 edition made it possible for the Illinois Re¬ 
 vision to have the record of remaining longer without recom¬ 
 pilation than that of any other State in the Union. 
 
8. Henry W. Blodgett. Dean of the 
 School 1892-1893; judge of the United States 
 District Court 1870 to 1905. One of the origi¬ 
 nators of the Chicago & Milwaukee Railroad 
 Company, procuring its charter in 1851 and, 
 at the time of his appointment to the Federal 
 Bench, the leading railway attorney in the 
 west. One of counsel representing the United 
 States before the Board of Arbitrators between the United 
 States and Great Britain in regard to the fur seal interests in 
 the Bering Sea. 
 
 9. Charles C. Linthicum. Graduate 
 of the School in 1882, and lecturer on Patent 
 Law from 1903 to his death in 1916. One of 
 the most eminent practitioners of national 
 and international standing. At the time of 
 his death he was legal adviser to the U. S. 
 Steel Corporation in patent matters. 
 
 10. Nathan S. Davis. Lecturer on Med¬ 
 ical Jurisprudence for nearly thirty years, 
 till 1902. Founder of the Medical School of 
 Northwestern University and its dean for 
 many years. 
 
 11. John Marshall Harlan. Lecturer 
 on constitutional law 1889-1892; associate 
 justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States 1877 to 1911. 
 
II. Names of Eminent Lawyers and Judges Associated 
 with the School in the Past. 
 
 1. Abraham Lincoln. In the early 
 part of the first year of the School (1859), 
 ■rr 4 * an important trial took place in the Federal 
 Court, which was held in the same building 
 with the School. Abraham Lincoln being of 
 counsel, the lecture hours were altered, so as 
 to permit the students to attend the trial. 
 Through one of the students, named Whitney, 
 who had formerly ridden the circuit with Lincoln, the stu¬ 
 dents made the acquaintance of Lincoln, and sought him each 
 morning before court opened, when Lincoln entertained them 
 with his wit, wisdom, and anecdotes. 
 
 The site of the School for the past eighteen years is directly 
 associated with the episode which ultimately led to Lincoln’s 
 elevation to the presidency. The old Tremont House, where 
 Lincoln usually sojourned, was located on the southeast cor¬ 
 ner of Lake and Dearborn Streets, and from one of its bal¬ 
 conies on Lake Street, Lincoln delivered, on July 10, 1858, 
 the epochal speech following that of Douglas, on July 9, 
 from the same spot, resulting in the challenge on July 24, 
 to that State-wide debate which made Lincoln nation¬ 
 ally famous. The spot was exactly identified to Dean Wig- 
 more, in 1902, by Judge James Bradwell, who was present 
 in 1858 on the occasion of both speeches. 
 
 2. Thomas Hoyne. In 1859 he contrib¬ 
 uted the sum of $5,000 for the purpose of 
 securing a professor of law and founding a 
 law school; Henry Booth was the professor 
 thus selected. Thomas Hoyne, eminent among 
 early Chicago lawyers, was chairman of the 
 Board of Counselors of the School 1865-1873, 
 and then president of the Board of Trustees 
 of the Union College of Law, until his death in 1884. His 
 son and his grandson are graduates of the School. 
 
3. Thomas Drummond. First chairman 
 of the Board of Counselors of the School 
 founded by Thomas Hoyne, 1839-1863 ; judge 
 of the United States Circuit Court from 1869 
 to 1884, when he resigned. 
 
 4. Wirt Dexter. Member of the Board 
 of Trustees of the Union College of Law in 
 the ’70s. Nephew of Franklin Dexter of 
 Massachusetts, who was counsel for the 
 Knapps in 1830, at their trial in which Daniel 
 Webster delivered his celebrated speech for 
 the prosecution. Wirt Dexter was the most 
 eminent advocate of his day at the Chicago 
 Bar, especially esteemed as counsel for the defence in a crimi¬ 
 nal trial. He was a partner of the late John J. Herrick, '68. 
 
 5. Oliver Wendell Holmes. Author 
 of “The Common Law” (1881), the first 
 Anglo-American legal history composed on 
 modern historical lines. Justice and Chief 
 Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judi¬ 
 cial Court, and then Associate Justice of the 
 United States Supreme Court. In 1902, at 
 the inauguration of the present quarters of the 
 Law School, he journeyed to Chicago to deliver the Inaugural 
 Address, on October 20. His signature bearing that date is 
 inscribed on a tablet in the Assembly Room. 
 
6. David Dudley Field. At the found¬ 
 ing of the School, in 1859, David Dudley 
 Field came West from New York, on the 
 invitation of Mr. Hoyne, to deliver the In¬ 
 augural Address. Field was already a recog¬ 
 nized leader of the bar, and his champion¬ 
 ship of legislative codification as the panacea 
 for common law conditions had given him a 
 national reputation, which later became international. Field’s 
 knowledge of the West had enabled him to form positive 
 political convictions in favor of Abraham Lincoln; and in 
 next year’s Republican Convention in 1860, Field received 
 the greatest share of credit for the nomination of Lincoln. 
 
 7. Julius Rosenthal. The most learned 
 man of his time at the Chicago Bar. Con¬ 
 nected in various official capacities with the 
 Chicago Law Institute from 1866 to 1905; 
 for almost forty years of this period its Libra¬ 
 rian; a constant friend of the School in en¬ 
 larging the opportunities for legal research 
 in the two libraries. Upon his death in 1905, 
 a valuable portion of his library, consisting mostly of foreign 
 books, was presented by his family to the Albert H. Gary 
 Librarv of Law. 
 
 THE LIBRARY OF THE 
 
 MAR 101939 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS