And it will then be incumbent upon you to build the elements of our government, of our legislation, and of our jurisprudence-in short, the elements of our institutional liberty.

In a country like ours, where the judiciary has the supreme power to interpret the constitution, the lawyer has a most alluring and responsible mission. The great principles of government and liberty contained in legislative enactments are defined and developed through judicial decisions, preceded by the arguments of the lawyers. It is through this process, after the magic touch of the bench, that those great principles acquire vigor and life, for the benefit of all mankind. It is through this process that the great constructive decisions become political monuments, handed down to posterity to mark a distinct evolution and progress. It is for this reason that an independent and brilliant judiciary and a bar equally independent and brilliant are as indispensable to the success of a nation as good laws and clean governments. The judge and the lawyer must, in the fulfillme..t of their duties, show the same amount of statesmanship as the legislators themselves. Nay, I will go further and say that the bar must show even a larger amount of this statesmanship than the bench. I would be satisfied with a judge who has a spirit of responsibility and sufficient intellect to appreciate the different arguments presented to him, provided that the lawyers who appear before him are able and worthy of their profession. The lawyers take the initiative. They are the guide. If they err or succeed, if they construct or destruct, if they degrade themselves or dignify themselves-upon them shall fall glory or condemnation. Sometimes we hear of corruption in the judiciary. But the judiciary can not be corrupted if the bar fulfills its duty. The people can breathe freely if the bar knows and does its duty. A worthy bar is the life—the oxygenof justice.

I have a profound respect for the learned decisions of our magistrates. They are the light which leads us in all our researches and study. Without them the science of law would be robbed of its most essential virtue. We have here, as in the United States, judicial decisions so deeply and universally rooted that without them a clear understanding of our government and laws would be difficult, if not impossible. But the lawyer or the student of law must not be satisfied with merely collecting the greatest number of decisions on a given subject, however brilliant and learned these decisions may be. The lawyer must, above all, be free and must know that he is free. The cases should not enslave the intelligence like a heavy burden handed down from the ages, or a close net woven around the intellect; they should not detain the growth of our life and the march of progress. For the same reason that, to the modern citizen, codes have no longer the quality of permanency and immutability, so to the lawyer judicial decisions should have only a relative and circumstantial value. The letter of the law may remain unchanged. It may not suffer any statutory amendment whatever; but this does not mean that its application and interpretation should not be changed to meet the changing conditions

of our modern life. Let us take, for instance, a "bandolerismo" law, enacted by an intelligent legislature, during unusual circumstances, to suppress wholesale assaults, robberies and other crimes against life and property. Following the clamor of public opinion, the law imposed a severe punishment for these crimes, and our magistrates, obeying its severe mandate, sent hundreds of criminals to jail. Supposing that the period of disorder has passed, conditions have taken on their normal character, and peace is restored. Even without changing the letter of that law, the former severity of the magistrates must give way to moderation and clemency. The letter of a law is not all. It is nothing but the form. Its spirit should be over and above it. The language in which our laws are written must necessarily be defective, because it is an imported language, and also because democratic governments are still in their period of experiment. The main thing, therefore, is the spirit of the law, the intent of the legislator tempered to the circumstances by the plastic art of the lawyer.

Law is only a piece of paper, and nothing but a piece of paper. Life can not be written on a piece of paper. You may find a simulated interpretation for every sentence, for every word, for every preposition; but there is something which you can not see in the inanimate framework of the law, something which forms the true basis of the law. It is its soul, its spirit, its life.

My friends, I would say to you: Keep your mind free, let no worn-out technicalities becloud your intelligence, study your own people, and remember that they are young and vigorous, unfettered by the traditions of the ancient continents, and you will be able to contribute to the formation of your government, your legislation and your jurisprudence.

FAREWELL ADDRESS OF GEORGE A. MALCOLM ON RETIRING AS DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Mr. Dean, Henceforth to be known as King George the Second of a law school, recognized and approved, a member of the Bureau of Comparative Law, American Bar Association, a member of the Association of American Law Schools, and soon to be a member of the honorary Order of the Coif.

Gentlemen of the Faculty, Henceforth to have a warm spot in my heart, because of your sacrifices and splendid co-operation.

Members of the Alumni Association, Henceforth to be my instructors if I am to conform to the description of a judge, as one who has first rate instruction from good lawyers.

Students of the College of Law, Henceforth, if you need advice on delicate matters of state, see the Dean; if you wish to borrow a few thousand pesos, see the Dean; if you aspire to a high position, see the Dean; for now I must be a sort of Dean for all law schools and all law students, favoring none above another.

Friends All, I thank you for this unmerited demonstration in my honor. In response to your kind action, permit me a few words of a personal nature, and some observations relative to my conception of my duties on the Supreme Court.

I speak nothing but the truth when I tell you that I sever active connection with the University of the Philippines with deep sorrow. There has been with me, since the day the Governor General surprised me with the news of my nomination as a Justice of the Supreme Court, none of the feeling of clation which a promotion usually carries with it. I remember that when I was appointed a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State of Michigan, it seemed, as I walked up the steps of the Capitol, that the building belonged to me. Now, on the contrary, there is a feeling of dejection on leaving our University. As a matter of fact, I have made myself sick trying to decide if I should not decline appointment to the Supreme Court and could I have thought of any way which would not have appeared as a gross breach of courtesy to the President, I should have declined. At last, I have come to consider it my duty to assume the new and high position. I had intended to leave the University very shortly under any circumstance. My work in the University, my work for legal education, and in a lesser degree, for public speaking, political science, and university life, to which I have given the last seven years in study, travel, and investigation, is. finished. It is much better for someone else with a new energy, and a new view-point to take up the work. And let me tell you, I

leave the College of Law in capable hands—with you, the loyal students; with you, the successful alumni; with you, the learned Faculty; with you, its distinguished President, and with you, sir, its brilliant and able Dean.

Life seems made up of breaks. I look back in reminiscent mood to the days of my youth on the farm and in the country school. I could have stayed there, a farmer, but I chose to make the break. I came to the village school, working in the printing office, lighting street lamps, and doing odd jobs. I could have stayed there, a printer or a merchant, but again, I chose to make the break. I came to the State University, and with the aid of a beautiful mother, I graduated in Arts and Law. I could have joined the teaching staff of a number of colleges and universities or gone back to be prosecuting attorney of my home county, with a chance to try for a seat in Congress. But again, I chose the great adventure. I came to the Philippines, with an expensive education in my head, three dollars in my pocket, and no job in my hand. I soon found that employers were not especially interested in my degrees but only in what I could do. And now after a little more than ten years in the Philippine service, there comes another break.

If I consider my first attempt at social service, the inauguration of new ideas and ideals of legal education, accomplished, I yet shall carry with me one title, that of General Editor of the Philippine Legal Series, which gives me the basis of my second attempt at civic betterment. Already two self-sacrificing and competent lawyers are at work on a Philippine Digest, patterned on the best modern digests. Already, Philippine scholars are awaiting the completion of the new Philippine Codes to turn out legal treatises. With the permission of the Dean of the College of Law, I shall retain my position of General Editor, and with the concurrence of my colleagues on the Supreme Court, I shall devote the hours which usually go to social intercourse to the development of a Philippine legal literature. England has her Blackstone; the United States, her Cooley; Spain, her Manresa; almost every country, some law writer of international fame. But where are the Blackstones, the Cooleys, the Manresas of the Philippines? What author of Philippine origin is cited by the Courts? I conceive this a legitimate field of judicial activity, to endeavor to provide the Philippines with a local legal literature.

There is another work of equal importance in which I hope to be permitted to do my part. Constantly we read of successful meetings and accomplishments of the different professional associations; that is, of all but one-Law! Why is this? Are the lawyers less capable, less progressive, less patriotic, than the pharmacists, the farmers, the doctors, the engineers? Assuredly, there are splendid men in these other professions. But just as certainly are their equals to be found in the Law. Most of the leaders of the Philippines belong to our profession. Is it lack of money? Even if money were the prime essential, which is debatable, yet, there is a considerable amount in the treasury of the Philippine Bar Association. Are the officers of the Association inefficient? If they are, then I am also, for I am an officer. But

Agoncillo, Cruz Herrera, Diokno, Arnaiz, Chicote, O'Brien, McMahon, and Gloria are good lawyers and fine gentlemen. No! The answer is in the apathy and the lack of co-operation of the Philippine Bar. Here then is work for you and me, work for all lawyers in the Philippines. Before them, there lie many useful fields of activity. I would like to see the Bar Association with active committees, recommending progressive laws to the Philippine Legislature, or formulating methods to discourage unnecessary litigation, or constructing a home for the Association. I would like to see branches in Iloilo, Cebu, Zamboanga, Pangasinan, and elsewhere. I would like to see the Bar Association publishing an informing and scholarly Philippine Law Review. Porto Rico, with not nearly the same number of lawyers as the Philippines, publishes a satisfactory review. I would like to see the day when the Supreme Court shall refer all questions of legal ethics to the Bar Association for recommendation, and when the Association on its own initiative will take action to disbar unscrupulous lawyers. I would be happy to use my official position to accomplish this purpose. And I would like to see the day when no judicial appointments will be made without the Governor General consulting the Bar Association, and when the Bar Association, forgetting political and personal feelings, will recommend only the best men for the position. I believe the Chief Executive would be glad to honor a conscientious Bar Association in this way. Here then lies our present duties to attend a general meeting of the Bar Association, and encourage others to do so; to join the Bar Association; and then to make it a real Philippine Bar Association.

I have spoken to you, my friends, in this personal way, to an extent which may be unwise. When I count the number of pronouns, I am ashamed. If I have done so, it has been mainly to ask your help in these crusades and to encourage you to plan your life for the good of your country.

Coming to the second portion of my address, my conception of the duties of the Judiciary, I intend to be indiscreet still further. Good friends have, time and again, urged me to be discreet. To some, you know, "discreet" is defined as one without opinions, the state of having no backbone; example, the jellyfish is discreet. But being a bachelor, matrimonially speaking, it is about my last chance to be indiscreet before I wed myself to discreet judicial duties. Perhaps six years from now, I will wish to modify my indiscreet opinions. Six years is named, for that length of time has passed since I delivered my inaugural address as Dean of the College of Law. Today I would not change a word of it. Nor do I specially care if others disagree with what may be termed the fine spun theories of a Philippine radical. If to be a progressive in the law is to be a radical, then I am happy to be so named. If to be a radical is to have opinions, then I am glad to join with Brandeis and Pound and Coudert and Holmes and others who, shocking conservatism, are moving toward "the new freedom" in the law.