In the fall of 1928 applicants to the bar of New York State will be required to have had at least one year of college education. The following year the requirement is to be doubled, and a certificate of satisfactory grades in college for at least two years will be demanded. There is a provision in the order of the New York Court of Appeals to the effect that a satisfactory showing on special examinations will be accepted in place of the college requirement, but inasmuch as these special examinations are intended to be the requirements for second-year men, the provision for them widens, without weakening, the application of the general regulations.

In one state at least the claims of the willing but less education lawyer have been tested and rejected. But the primary significance of the New York regulations is not for the cause of education, but for the community at large. Though higher education does not set up to be a training in practical justice, it does purport to be a training in judgement. Evidently the New York courts have realized this and hope to take advantage of it. Perhaps the realization may spread, and it may some to be more generally felt that it is more important for the community to have lawyers of judgement than to be tolerant toward individuals who are less qualified to serve it. There is here no question of privilege, no question of discrimination against the non-college man. The provisions for special examination remove that possibility. The value of education is alone considered, and some degree of it has been found desirable. If the New York decision be followed up, popular conceptions of justice may be led to seek better guides than Mr. Hearst.