Issuu on Google+


COMPILED & EDITED BY: ANNE BADGLEY Editor-in-Chief RICHARD GANS Associate Editor-in-Chief


David Robertson Eric Fjelstad GRAPHIC DESIGN:


Kevin Swan Lynn Swart








Alfred Harsch / Muriel Mawer I Carroll A Cahen I John Rupp I f Clyde Maxwell

Marum G. Gallagher

---------------·--······ THE MIDDLE YEARS 3




Willard A. Zellmer /Jennings P. Felix I JoAnn R. Locke I John Huston I James M. Dolliver I George Neff Stevens I William Stoebuck I Fred Bruhn I Marjorie Dick Rombauer / Daniel Ritter ---------------------------------------EMERGENCE OF THE 47 "MODERN" REVIEW Richard 0. Kummer! I Michael Garvey I Karl B. Tegland I Gary Vancil I Thorn H. Graafstra /Arden J. Olson I Karen Boxx I Kim Pflueger I Jacquelyn Beatty



Acceptance Letters (George McCush, 1926) (Myron Carlson, 1952) / Handwritten subscription request & answer /Flapdoodle about reserved library carrels for Law Review members


CopyrightŠ 1988, Washington Law Review Association



The law review history project began last summer with a casual glance through old law review issues by some curious new editors. This journey into the past revealed some fascinating information about our predecessors and the evolution of the Review. It also led to the exciting realization that we are heirs to a rich tradition within the law school. As law review staff members, we have a tendency to see law review as an endeavor with a distinct beginning and end. We serve our time and move on to other things, our actions having no effect beyond the day we graduate from law school. Our research into the history of the Review quickly erased that image. We were constantly discovering that our problems and our triumphs were not unique. Our insightful philosophical discussions were not as momentous as we had imagin~d. Through our research we began to feel a sort of kinship with our predecessors. We wondered about their experiences as members of the law review. So we asked them. This book captures the history of the Review as it lives in the memories of its alumni. We are indebted to the former Review and faculty members who provided information for this book. Through their enthusiastic response to our letters, phone calls and requests for interviews we have been able to trace the development of the Review. Special thanks go to Marian G. Gallagher and Margaret A. Darrow for saving and making available original documents from the Review's past. This small book does not pretend to be a complete


history of the Washington Law Review. Undoubtedly, we have missed some high points and some low points, too. Many of the contributors also provided us with additional insight into their lives .as law students and ·later as attorneys. These added memories set. the scene for many of the events in the law revieW's history. ·· ·· · · We hope that the ex-cerpts that follow will move you to reflect upon your experiences as a.member of the law review. Perhaps, in 2010, the Editor-in~hief ofVolume 85 will pick up a copy of this bookand find the years embodied in its pages to be both reassuring and entertaining. If so, oureffortswill have been successful. · · ·

a~""t.~cL:?~­ ANNE BADGLEY

Editor-in-Chief Seattle, Washington . May,1988


RICHARD GANS Associate Editor-in-Chief


The Washington Law Review had two beginnings. The first issue of the Review was published in l919, tmder the editorship of former Dean John T. Condon. Financial difficulties forced the school to abandon the project after only one issue. In 1925, the Review was revived under the leadership of student Editor-in-Chief Paul Ashley, and a second Volume I, Number 1 was published. Dean Alfred J. Schweppe kept the dream alive as the book struggled through its first few years of financial difficulty and indifferent student leadership. In 1936, the Washington Law Review joined forces with the Washington State Bar Journal. This arrangement rescued the review from its precarious financial situation and boosted the Review's circulation to one of the highest in the country. The Review continued its association with the state baruntil1961, when the Review was able to provide its own financing and to escape the provincial designation inferred by the Review's title. The Review has been housed in many locations. Its first "office" was a table in the library on the top floor of the building which is now Savery Hall. When the original Condon Hall was built on the main campus, the Review's offices shifted to a group of rooms in the basement. Today, the Review occupies the "penthouse suite" on the eighth floor of the new Condon Hall. The management structure of the Review has also gone through a number of changes over the years. Although the Review began in 1925 as a student publication, a faculty editorial board was introduced in 1929 to provide continuity. The

L A ,W


H I S T 0 R Y

role of this faculty board, led by the faculty Editor-in-chief, varied over the years. Originally the board selected and solicited outside articles. Later they functioned as ad visors. Throughput this period the student board was led by the ''President" eqUivalent to the current Editor-in-Chief. In 1948, the facility board 路was phased 路out. ToO.ay,. Professor Richard 0. Kurnmert and the members of the Board of Trustees serve the Review in an advisory capacity. The excerpts which follow both shed more light on these events and fill in some of the gaps left by this sketchy summary.

.who was





The Birth Of The Washington Law Review A lone copy of the Washington Law Review made its debut in April, 1919. It was eighty-eight pages long. The cover optimistically states that it was to be printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. This issue of the Review was published by the Washington State Bar Association under the editorial guidance of the faculty and students of the University of Washington law school. The Editor-in-Chief was Dean John T. Condon; the student editorial board was yet to be appointed when the Review's first issue went to press. Although, or perhaps because, individual issues cost the substantial price of sixty cents, the Review was forced to cease publication for lack of subscribers.



The Rebirth Of The Review ALFRED HARSCH (interview) Article Editor 1927 Faculty Editor-in-Chief 1935-36, 1942 Former Professor of Law Retired, Lacey, ~ashington

I entered law school in the year of 1925 when they were in the process of putting out the first issue of the current law





review. When the R~view was started, the objective was to provide a publication that focused on regional law. Editor-inChief Paul Ashley and Business Manager Ted Carlson were looking at state law. They did not aspire to become a nationally recognized Review. I was not a member of the editorial board during my second year. I entered in my third year. The members of the board were picked strictly on scholastic standing; interest was 1924

Proposal for formlltion of law review.


!bare .11 hel'ein no aUaD".pt to prove valuo to a Law so.hool !lor h:lw w triad. to <!Aimollatrata Ula uu-

a crod.ll>lo Review.

f\llnaes to the lloneh llllli lla.r at tm NortllWeat at a Review dovotad to llorthwaat Law, .!lalievin!S beth to ba ad.mitt84, M h.l.vo IIW!raly triad. .to augbllst a pr ..otioal>le alld JlU:'II>anU>t orgacl&lltlon !or the .J>roiuctton or tl"' ',;/Wihington Law lle'fiaw, and to cutl!na a aound editori»l p<>doy, Conelusiona are baaed upon tl:rl exparl•noe or the!! ;iovi•we. &evertheleaa it la 1ntarast1no: to nota the . . tue tn wll.l.oh as lnd.1oatod. by chance reearks ot eavoral

Rev!swa are held, Doans~

"'116 llll!ave very firmly ln the val\IB of th& Law Review worl!: tor our et:liillnta, and tor tha aohool." IlciB.11 l:1Jco ll o t l'O 11n11 y lv a.o.1 a

"--we haft to=<l u .. ~uarterly 8111ply juatl tlad by 1 te aducatlooal value, iild tha fau>t that 1.• ia a coi!B ldbrallla at1limlli!Ult to onc~ago raaaaroll work on tha part of o b.Hlants," H. ;;., \:ill1tea1d.4 ot Cornall "'llle 1tudllnts reapond"!ulq to tholr ruponaib1l1ty. In my opinion i t 1a QA& of tho c.l!iet edualltioWJ.l toatiU'>a of tho Harvard :Law Scl:lool." tie &A l'olld or l!arvud. "--asld.a trao tho l>anaflt to ~• at<lll&nta, 1t payl because ot lJ's o ch:><~aod Npu ta ti OEl of u.., ochool." Librarian at California (oral) Q~taationo.1f'Eia ~nere aant to tftnty Rovtews. ,li1Swarl t'rom rtfUon harewi t.b. atlz>r a<Utoolo have pr011!ae<i do t• Hod upon tm return of ttw1 ];)00>11 or ,i<Utor from vacation.

w that our a5sraea1va""ee in thl• regard. will not uom Prom ouw.l GOElnr•ution with 1tudenta wo bsliava that allou14 a Ravlow b4 proJaawd, 1 t wruld roceiv<> till Ull.II.D.lmoua a.nd hearty aupport ot tha otudent body. In taltiElS thoae •t.opa 1011 bave, " think, ret'leeteli the w1ab or praouoally avary tt.Want, pruumpt1n.



21, 1924




not taken into consideration at all. The top scholar in the class was automatically appointed Editor-in-Chief. Unfortunately, the man who was at the top of our class, who was named President for the 1927-28 year{ was not interested in. theReview. The man below him also did not seem. to have much interest in it. If it had not been for our Dean, AI Schweppe, the law review might have died again during that period. Dean Schweppe got in contact with me and asked me to take over the Praposal for formaiion (cont.).

EDITOnuJ.o l!:dttort.e.l ObJeotiv• -- to oo•Qr NortbttGat

lo.wr ·and lOt;al


parttcula:rl}' 'Juhingtott


!<II torla.l Org..,lahttoD Ill J. t-~eulty Xdttortal EOard or throe mon, appointed by tho DeiW, Ol"lt'l

or them to ba Z<;Htor--tn-ohtoffl

This board to


flne.l Atthor-tt.y

ln .Q.ll tn.'l.ltare pertuintng tO thd Tievt&W (aubJeot to OotlfOrm1 ty to gt!IDQTQ..l Untv&r,lty u.nd Law Sohoal poltotun), and to ex&rolas a. BUJHiJ"V1£10n over the .ouUno of produotlon lUI~ dl&tdbut!on of tl!i Rovt...,.

{ ,e -if 1·


';wel"Ve 6tudeut .Asaoolo.te•. ohoseu on tlle ba.&.1s ot Bohole.r5h.lp, th~ .,"Unior clo.a•~ A a\Ud6'Ct. edttor and a. Bu~lnaaa .&n8£1)r oho.a&n !rom th• las.oalateo by tho l'aeulty ao ..,-d. Tbtat .U•oel&t<~C un4tr tho dlreo\\on of tho ~tudont Editor ..nd tho BuolnoJO .ll.ll.nag<>r, to do the ~otunl odltortal 1110rl<. (Z)


trom. the Ssnlor a.n4 rtve 1rotJ

Content• (11 (21 (3l


ot the Be•t•• llajor lrtlolaa oo,.r!Dg rrcrthwoH problema. 'lloteo a:nd Coamonts on notable lliirth.,.tlt dootalou. Raoant \l'ashlngton and !lorthwroat o• . . •· Bool< Ro•l•w•.

Cr•dlt to .\UOolatOI Ct"ldU. on tbosts 'for etudent• wl::o OODtrtbtltiOtla gra.n\ecl attar recCI:Eiflendatlon by t~e Po.oulty !loud t~-Dd a:pp.roY•d by the Dun •

.!Lt:!_!llatertal ~· Suba!Q;; from


of 1;',

J.ggrusln advert IS 11lg ooHal tattoo Aggt'ualvo •nb•orlptlon aoHoltUton. Wo-rk t.owud tlnDDOl&.l t~.rraTJgemont th• St.s.t• Bar A•aoDt&tl.Ou •hai"eby ea.oh msmber reoci'f8B a. eubaor1ptl.oc to the Revtew tnoidoD\ to bte memberahtp tn tho Js•oalattO!l, ~:t. the J.eaoc1atton p&ya tho iUI't't•w

.. ruuutl7 lump


~and ~ub.saguont


1o. <i&oreasLnS' oubsldy

troro the


ot W. w>tll tho J!ovtow la odf






student articles. In effect, I took over as student editor-in-chief. Dean Schweppe worked on soliciting the main articles and I took care of the student articles. In that way, the ReView survived. In the fall, the faculty decided to reorganize the Review to keep it alive. A professor was named as editor-in-chief to take care of the problem of lack of student interest. That arrangement continued until 1948. 1925

Membership invitation.

4532 - l9tll A."78â&#x20AC;˘ No E ..

m.:lborahip on tlw



nq ott1ot 1 302 Ctm:.:J:tree Balle

I 6

IC8cp ¡ thls lattor oonftd.enUal




There were very frequent delays in those early days. In general, these delays were our fault for getting the copy in late. In fact, the books never came out on a regular schedule.








Letter of

Mily 1 Status report on Review.



l&&y 1, 192~

DD11.n John T Condon, Univeraity of Waahington Seattle, Waehlngton. Dear Sir•

It 1~ .eo difficult to r-ch you poreonally, and tho are •lipping :by ao rapidly, thAt it ....... neceaoo.ry to taka thla ll>ean• or IW!IIIIariz1ng the preoant aituation of tho 'f"ASHlNGTOrl W!l Rt:VIE'I, .le !2_ Uaterials

Tb<> Edi.t.orial work ia well in hand. 'fa have ll>ajor artiolu <Nft'l.eient for a yuar. or li>Ore. Atoon.r; th.o aantributore arol Judt;e £1 li•, llr BaulllUlll, Mr Lichty, Zettler, Wr Catthtt, and !{r

Further major a.rt1oleo have been proW.aad by lll61libere of tho t'e.oulty downtown attornaye. Our recotption everywhere he.e boon moot hearty. It will ploaaa you to know that member• ot tho aupromo court h11.Ve made bolptul aug,oot1one, and have evidoncod a lively lntoreet in tho RoYiew,


Likowiee, we have euff1clont boorreviowa, notee, and minor art1clea, Dean Leaphart or Montana he.o aent eovoral ahort artlalee.

You will recall that ohronolo,ically tha atepa

n&Ye bean aa

followar Pureua.nt to yow- auggost1on ot Al.l,!lU.It 1924, a survey waa made covorin& all th" hadin:; Law R"vl.ewo. The raplles, and puticularly thoeo parte rotarrin& to incoae, coota, and naeoooary oubeldloe, vera INWIIll.rl.:z.od and. tabule.t.od t.o maks clear what we might expect.. Loc&l bida wore oecurod, and carefully aattMotod bud,oto threo yoara wero aubmlttod to you. lt "*'" clear t.ho.t. thero wo:.Ud nocoaa&r1ly bo a losa tor two and perhapo threo years. Lator,

you arpointed a otudont board to proceed with editorial and

bueinesa preparation. 1t. tho t'irot moet!.ng of the board, you aWillli.riud thCI need for a rev1<>w at 11uhin:;ton 1 and &ketch&<! the ot.<~po tc bo taken financially, You ota~d your in~ntl.on of aocur1~ an appropriation fr~ tho University to cover the firet tew ieauee, in ardor to render unneeeaeary an approach to the alumni until the firet 1esuo wao actually in print. You ~ntionod your dea1r~ of many yearn etandlnr; for a l&view, and pledt;ed a be.cldnr; even unto your own pureo.





Status report (cont.).



A /ow ..,eko lator, boca.use of' tile 1oconCXlly 1 pro~~:raa planned tor you felt that it would be bettor to pootpono tho actual eoc~~ 1ng or tna apprt~priat10Jl, ·and tin.o.nca th.o t'irot hauoa trom aG!ley to be aoeured trou advance two-yoar·aubscriptiona from intoreatod al~i. In J&nuary, you told uo that you would prepare a. suitable loUor, and would have tno ~&1l1n~ liote brought to data.

the atoto,

Fi.n.o.lly, in !.!arch, boc01.1ao you 11114 not· h~d time to prepare tho letter youreolf ae you had doeired to do, Oazleon and I IU~1ttod for your approval a let.tor liMen we note, and which, nth ctlant:•• auu;eotod by you, 1e ill your hand a. D..!rinr; the firot. !ow daya in April n a.geJ.n urged the m.att.or ot an immediate mailint: ot the letter, it boin( obv1oua thAt barely enough t~o remained to aand out tba initial lettar·wit.~ nocooaary tollow-up letter•, and racdiYo anawora before Juno t, publioation date. It ie tho wr1tar 1 o jud~nt BUtficiont time dooe not now remain to adoqulltaly canvau th.o al\lllll\1 i;rwp. 'lo iriU h.o.vo t.o finance thh first iuiJft 1n part trcu. oth.or oO\U'c.,a. l'loubtloas durin~: th.o ~r, thru an 1ntono1Yo mail and peroonal aubaor1pt1on o&.mpal,n, a Batizte.otory nwnber or tWG*)'e&r l!llWAr11 eubeoripti,cns c:o.n be obts.l.rulli, In Vl.ow or your repos.tlld a.uuronooa to the board ae a whole and especially t.o Carleon and mo during; our IIWIY poreonal intorvina with you, vou W&ro determined t.o aeo this, 110 aro dof'1n1t.oly pl&nning on tho ileue of Juno 1, f'ully confident. that your postpono~nta wero prodieatod upon 11006 ot.bor aource tor ini Ual fW\<11.

Roapootfully youre,





1925 PencilmLJck-up

of cMJer from Volume I, Number1.








s... P~<..:•, c-- LiJv·<r::- • . - l>~·l?lfi"ciV G- CJ.LIS •• _ ~- 1



k'•G-1-<TII uAI(?c--r?

R.~< ""r!i~




1:-J;Eu. l(.t<'( ((.1,\l?Arl""

Skd~ (F

Ri?At.lY-. ·. '1';>JOKIV LK.

C.DMMt!N'i'S • • . • . • _. . • . . . . . . • . . _ • • • • • • •

I!€C.~k't" CASES . . . . . . . . . ' . ' . • • /t~llloO'W~


r·('ti"· ·' '







.. . '

••••. , . • . . , • . . •• . . • • . - • . . •

UIVtv'l: Its tlY IF WA.!oHIP.:16TOr.J LI\'N SCt+O()L. 5fATTL.E 'IVA~IIoJtzl'cN


. ._____._..._::t.._...:_·



_ _::_:.,_-_·""_"""_·_--A._-_,_,__-...Jtt_._ _ C.l"J"1--·-IJ..._._,_n_·._--






Masthead from

Review with note by Editor Paul P. Ashley.

WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW Publiahc:d ln October, January, March·, and Juno by the Sc.hoal ot the Vnlveraity of Waahington. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE $2.50 PER ANNUM, SINQLE COPIES 70 CENTS

Adf!isory Board DEAN jouN













Editors PAUL P.













T. D.


Business Managtr

The \Vashington Law Review does not seek to' add further con· gestion to an already crowded field. There are many excellent Reviews, general in scope. But we feel that there is room, and need, for a legal publication which will serve as a medium of expression for the jurists of the Northwest, and will be devoted particularly to the interpretation and advancement of Northwest law. Since there is no statutor~· or common law restriction on shooting starward, we frankly confess our hope of making the Review so useful that the attorneys of the Northwest will consider it indispen$ible.

THE AssiCNMENT. OF MERCHANTs' BooK AccoUN'Ts AS SECURITv.-Rcpudiating the rule commonly attributed to the famous case of De12rlt v. Hall ,1 a rule which for at least 70 years had been understood to be the rule of the Federal courts, the United States ·Supreme court decided 2 in 1924 that as between successive assignees of the same chose in action, mere priority of notice did not give priority of right. The decision by Mr. Justice Butler serves to clarify the Washington law and the decision in rhe early case of Bellingham Bay

a Ruu. 1. 2 Salem Trust Co. v. Maouracturera' FlnaDCe Co., 264 U. S. 182, H A. L. R. 867. 1





1 9 2 7 - 3 3 MEMORIES OF PROFESSOR R.H. NOTI'LEMAN Faculty Editor-in-Chief, 1927-1933

[Editors' Note: This excerpt, from an interoiew with JoAnn R. Locke, Editor-in-Chief 1951, describes Professor Nottleman in his later years.] 路 .. Professor Nottleman was a darling. He was a very good professor. He knew his subjects backwards and forwards. He was kind of short. He was a lifelong bachelor and lived with his sister. I always thought of him as a turkey cock; you know he rather strutted, and he always carried an umbrella, like the English. It didn't matter if it was raining or not. I remember once he was strutting along while he was lecturing. He didn't watch where he was going and he strutted right off of the podium.



The Washington Law Review, as all other scholarly publications, must rely on the honesty and integrity of both its student and professional authors. As the Review learned in 1931, sometimes even the most thorough cite checking can fail to disclose serious flaws in some articles.







Letter about

p112giarism incident.

!'ioftlmbor 24 1 1931


Young B. &111 th Sobool o~ lAw, ColUI!Ibta Unhar.tty New YCjl'k City Ilaal" llMul lh1 th l



D. I..a:na •• a at~nt ln the lall' Scthool iA At tl:lai time u ru1a or the IIOhool rt~quil.'ed Nch oaWU&lte tor the degrM to aubmit a tbeaia on GD:lll lc91l ~op1a, t.:r. J..on6 ohoae tho topic, ".An ~lllltion of' the Weah11l«t.on Rule ll'orbidd1ll£ the Direotlon at " Vordiot \ll,en a Oonb'IU'y Ver4ic1o Vlou.l.d Neoeaea.rily be Set Adde ce J.cn1nrv '"l;he iiaicht ot '\he l:.'9'1doll08. • Tho work me dono under the dhoat11ln II!' Pra!asear Ooo4.tler (DO'It de(U)II.OOdj. ur. Lon.g natea that in , tDr the · wark, he l."'lll!.d your erUala in ::!4 C"lumb1e law nertew tmd that he told Proteae~ r.<X~dDBr tN!t the histcn•1cal uevolOIJ1I1iln"t of the topio hud bean oo1'0red ao 11ell by :you ao.d he eBW no u;;e 1n dup!.ico:U~ it. l:r. LOD4J; furthor atntoo that l'roteeosor Ooodnar 1'6C~l1&d that hu ueod not 1'8aT1ta tho hiataricnl =tte.r but ahoul.d oawer only tha ;,aa.hington m1;er1als. l.!r, tong 1 hovovor, in thfl origiMl dre.ft ot his thoaia, incorparnted, "', rmny pa.rngrepha or Y··IU" Rrtiolo but olfti.uB tbnt Proteesor Goodner 1mB 1'ully QWIU'tl or 1t. Un.fortunately I clUtoo to Proteasar Goudnor'" denth, I bS-rn been unable to writy tl.li11 o~teL:.Ont. lolr.

1gaa and a Ollll41d.llu rar thtJ u..s. degree.

! do fill.d., bouaver, tbnt in th11 i'J.Rt1l u.ud nfiicinl <.'lrd't. ot the theoi:l pl..clood in the l1bmry and aooaptod 1n partial fult1ll-

l!lllnt o! tho requil"'el&nto for tho d&~ 1 umy parAgrnpha amouat11'14,; to IIO'Yl.U'nl p6fJIUo of your art iole appearild 't'orboU.~:~ w1 th<>ut quotati c.n ronrkll e.nd with no noknanledeemmt in ttcy fonn or your e.uthorahip. At th1e t1 a, .A.l.floed J', ::;ahneppe ,.,,a d&on or tho tu.w Bah;)()l 11M 1n ahflrge ot: le6d1ne; artioloe far the Law liovittw. He took Mr. Lang's t::J&sill and ed1t&4 1t ror puhHootton. This odltlne 1.nolude4 obnng1ng the title to •JUdicial Control over tho ~:t'ioieney ot the l!:'ridenoe in Jury Tr11lla 1 • altering the IU"1'8Jlgll1!1Gnt or oartaln parts, :rewritin.a aamo or the footnotes end anittine: a nw.bttr or pu£!)e or the tbee1e dealing with the l'loehingtou caeoe. ThoiMI !'OrtionB ot L'.:r, Lo~'a thesis which hAd been copied. !'l'on• )'our r.rt lola llerc, or oo<U"!lo • retained, In edit1~ the theoia, D&an ::lohweJlll& did 'tihBt any editor micht do with a mnnunaript submittod for publiatttion. :w did n.:>t 1 hOTJievor,





Plagiarism letter (cont.)



B. &nith

consult t.:r. Long in ndwnoe about tho publication and l.:r. Long d14 noi know thDt tt ~s to be published until he saw a oopy tn print. othar thasea he.d been used in to.ahion by the Rertev and a student z:light reaaon.abl.,y ontiotp!lh that his tb8a1a 0 11" e t#)Od one, might be ao ua8d. ll.!'ter tbs article he.4 'been publ1sh84 1 :Mr. Long aaw B.::ld rend it but did not makB aey expla.nat1on ot the !latter. Aa to t:to.& taot of :plag1ar18111 tbero ta, ~ course, no doul,t. J>ntire pef\'98 ot your urt1ol.e have been taken without (!\l0to.t1on !<lf.l.•lrs and 111.thout aey nelcrl.orJl&dBOI:lllnt ot your nuthurah!p. 1':::·. Lone 1o m:-1ti!li> you 6 letter or n:;>olO(y today. I cannot tell you bon deeply tho ent1:ro 1"nott1ii;r nnd our present editor, ::r. t:ottelmtl.nn, r-egret tll.ia 'Vllry lllltwt=te ooourrenoe. You will roul1ze tliet no O!lll ropre:;ent1n.:; the 1A11 neview bnd the rdnteot 1doo ot tho t':lota. Vor;r ziucerel;; yours 0

Rnrold s:!!opilol'd


L _ _.______l 14




1 9 3 4 MURIEL MAWER (interview)

Legislation Editor, Class of 1935

Of counsel with Karr, Tuttle,.Campbell, Mawer, Morrow & Sax, P.S., Seattle, Washington WRITING A STUDENT PIECE

My strongest memory about Law Review involves writing my student piece. I had been assigned to write a piece on water rights. Professor John Sholley was my advisor. I knew nothing about the topic, and I wasn't very interested in it. I v.rrote the piece and took it to Professor Sholley to have him okay it. His office was quite small-not much more than a desk and two chairs. lie didn't ask me to sit down, and right away he started picking my article to pieces. I reached down and took it away from him. I said, "Give that back to me. If you are going to write it, I don't want my name on it." That article never did get written, though I'm sure that I wrote other things. Aside from that experience, my memories of law review are good ones. The law review gave you a different approach from the case method used in school. It gave me more confidence in myself, which I needed. And I'm sure that it added to my acceptance in the bar and in court. Later I was chosen for a position as one of the six state bar examiners and was later to become the first woman chairman. I'm sure that having been on the law review helped me; it made the bar think that I would be good at writing questions and grading them. LAW SCHOOL FRIENDS

I became good friends with my classmates in law school and on the law review. There was one student-a Mrs. Samuels-who was older than most of us. She lived in Queen A1me and was married to a doctor. One day, she decided that the students and the faculty at the law school were not getting enough to eat. So, every Friday for all of the three years that I was in law school, Mrs. Samuels had a buffet at 3:15 and we all got to eat a real meal. Through those buffets, and helping to prepare the food, I got to know the faculty and my fellow students quite well. There was a littlerestauranton40thStreet between Uni-





versity Way and Campus Way. They had things like ham or roast pork For 25 cents, you could get two pieces of bread, a slice of meat, and some gravy. That was usually the big meal of the day. We looked forward to the buffets. WORKING DURING LAW SCHOOL

Lots of people had to work during law school, too. I was a tutor and paper grader for the political science department. I sometimes tutored law students, too. I was selected by the Dean to help write the Washington annotations to the Restatement of Contracts and the Restatement of Trusts. This work was funded by a Mr. Backus, and the $25 per month I received helped put me through law school. I remember one fellow who was in a dance orchestra. He wouldn't stop playing until about one o'clock in the morning, and even then he didn't go right home. I had to poke him to wake him up if he got called on. This was for a class that met on Saturday morning at eight o'clock in the morning. The professor did not tolerate late students and would read you the riot act if you carne in late. He sometimes locked the front door to the classroom after the bell had rung, and instead of facing the professor, the late arriving students would take notes from the stairwell. FINDING A JOB

The Depression was on when I was in law school, and jobs were hard to find. During my third year, a representative of the U.S. government came to the law school to talk about job opportunities. (We later found out that he was from the FBI.) I went with my friend Mary helen Wigle, who was also on the law review, to hear him speak He saw us and said, "Those two women might just as wellleavebecause the FBI does not hire women." We stayed on anyway because we wanted to hear what he had to say. A lot of people took jobs as insurance adjusters after graduation. People who worked in the legal field sometimes only got desk space in a law finn; they would split any fees they got with the finn. I was lucky. I was saving money by living at horne. My mother and father had taken out an endowment policy when I was a baby, and it matured at the right time. I was able to rent an office in the Dexter Horton building for $500, and Mary helen Wigle and I went in to practice together. Maryhelen's husband had contacts in the community.





My father operated a laundry service. I worked there part time in the summers, on the shirt line. I knew a lot of women there, and many of them had husbands who were out of work. These women were taken with the fact that they had a friend and a coworker who was a practicing lawyer, and I did a lot of work for them-default divorces and landlord/ tenant issues. There was also a dentist at the time who advertised quite extensively, and we took on the job of collecting his bad debts. Some of those people later became our clients. CARROLL A. CAHEN (letter) Class of 1936 Retired, Burke, Virginia

As I recall, those in the upper 10 percent of the first year class on grades were asked to join the law review. I accepted the offer. We would be assigned to read certain pages in the advance sheets of the Washington Supreme Court and report on the case when we met as a board at periodic times. We had a faculty adviser who always attended such meetings (Mr. Mecham who taught real property). We were expected to write case notes for publication in the law review and to write longer articles for publication from time to time. I received one half of the Carkeek prize ($50 in toto at that time) in 1936 because I was the only one who had case notes published in each of the four quarterly publications that year; the other half of the prize went to the member of the law review board who wrote the best article published that year. ~

1 9 3 6


At that time, the Review's circulation was not adequate to carry its costs, but the real financial problems came later. In 1936, we joined forces with the Washington state bar association to publish the Washington Law Review and State Bar Joumal. The primary purpose of this partnership was to relieve





our financial problems. The bar made a very definite financial contribution. In addition, we did have some subscribers outside the state. Mainly, though, we had to rely on the state bar association for our financing.

1936 Letter to Mr.

review with

Fred G. Cupp

State Bar



merger of law

wr. Fred a. oupp Superintendent af Seoend Clael Terminal St.ati on Seattle, Waanington.


Dear SLr, ~~



beg to advise that beginning •1th the November, of the WaehLngton Law Rev1ow there will be merged

with that publication the •state Bar Revtew,• now publ1ahad ac:~~&


by tho 'llaahlngt.on State Bar .Aaoec1o.-

Tho name of tho publico.tion, thereafter, wlll be



1ngton Law Review and State Bar Rev1ew.(~aurnalt}~ After the merger the auboorlpt.ion prlee of the •• oombinod publication


be reduced to 11.20 per annum1 the

exlat1ng eubacrlptlon price la ,2.50 por annum. ~»a

It i• aloe propoeed to cnango the publication

date of the third 1oeue in each volume :from Juno to July, oo that the perlodioal •ill horeaftor bo


iaouod Ln

January, April, July and Hovomber ot ee.dh yoar.



Buein••• .llanager






Dean Schweppe's

"Four Good

Reasons" subscription ad.

Four Good


Why You Should Subscribe to

The W ashingto11 Law Review 1. It is a quarterly law magazine devoted to the interests of the law and lawyers of this state.

2. It is a time-sauer for lawyers on many important questions. 3. It calls to your attention the new decisions of importance, and keeps you abreast of the legal news in this路 state. 4. This State NEEDS a Law Review and your support is necessary to continue to pubpublish it. Stnd your subscript iotu >t

OD<e to

THE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW L>w School. University of Washingron


Subscription Price for Volume 3. $2.50 Ynhllnf路S 1 .and 2 nut,v be oht~!ned in onb,,u,u1 !orn\ a.t the ~RIHt~ pdt路i' f'lt'r \-oiLtrnP.; in hound rorm. at ,$f.:?~ prr vnlum.r.::.


I 19




1932 Continued

President Lyle




letterS to UW


Dr. K, LYle Sp~na~r. Preft14ent, 11D1Yerel ty ot. WaellltiiOon, Seattle, ~ashtngton: Ky de~ Dr. Spenoeri-

J'or ea•e "-• I have been tnten41np; to _wrt te to you, wlth reterenae tn that Yarr merltorloue publlo~tlnn, the Waeh1Dgton Law R~1ew, .nd to urgft thAt the UniYeretty make whAtftYar finanot•l anpraariattnn la neaeeeary fa~ lta per.aneut oaDt1nuanoe. !hie morning t ha..-e read a oopr nt tb~ letter whtob ~udge ~ett H. Parker wrotft tn you yeeterday an tbia .ubjeot. thAt letter eo fullY an4 ole~ly atate~ th• taote lll:ld the merits of the m•tter, that I whh to adopt .ie aa 1111. e~reeelon of mr own Ylewa, ror ~1 \be reaaanu mentioned by Judge Parker tt would, in .., opinion. be a.n trr•parable loee \o the Uni..-erelty it the puhlioatton at the Waehtngtan Law ReY1ev ehnul4 o~aee. Ae Judge Parker well aaye, a •la1lar publla~ttan le put out by e9ery t~rtant l~• eohaot ln the ooUDtry, nnd th" pruenoe or &haena~ at auoh a J)ertocliaal hae 1111ah to clo tn flrti'lg- the atancltt>g of a law eohool, &• well ae in produotn! AmOng lte etudento thAt 1ntel1eatual and literary atmo~here, wbloh the auaaeAa of & law eahnol demande. J etnoerely hboe that th~ facUlty &nd R•gent• of the Un1~er~tty wt11 -~pY,.atate th~ import,nae at gtY\n~ to the R"Ytew wluttooYer ! .apport n"ed, eApeotally at thte wh"n the mnotJOUana tn thte e~ata of tbe Reetat"•ent of thfl, ae the Yerlaue IIUOOtl.llfli'fe tnetal.,ent• are reaeiYed fro• tbr. ~ertoan Law tn•t1tute, ie a •atter of unu1ua1 tntereet aaot>g all who are oonneoted wtth the legAl prateReton.


•t tb kind t'egude, tour1 t \ n a _, , e r OD/f




~ .

-·( ?-.




Letters ta President Spencer (cont.).

January 25, 1932

Dr. Lyle Spencer, President, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. My dear Doctor Spencer:

I am advised that th~anagement of the ~~shington Law Review issued periodlcully from.our law school is in such financial difficulties that its publication will likely have to be suspended unlesz some materiel aid comes to it t'rom some sourco other than has been avAilable in the paot. I think it would be regl•etteble co hllve the publication .of tr,is review suspended. Ench of the leading law schools .or th& country has such a periodical publication which is not only of greet benefit to the profession, and I think in turn to the public, but 1a also of ~enefit to the school from whonce it is issued. You probably know that I have been, since its organization in 1923, the representative of our state on the Council of the American Law Institute which is carrying on a large work looktr.g to tho simplification, by appropriate restatement, of the col!lfuon lew, that ls, other than statutory, as developed in the United States from our heritage of the common law of England. The Institute has alreudy made substantial pro&ress in text statements on e number of subjects, one or two of which hove already been published and others or which w"ill ue publbhed within tho next year or so. In a large number of states thesetext statements have been annotated by the deci~ions or the court of last r~sort of the particular state, thus making the text statement partieularly useful in each statA where such annototions ars made. This supplemental work in our state has been undertalcen by some of the faculty of our law school, and, so fer as it has progressed, has been well &nd exhaustively done. It has tl6en proposed and ?ractically agreed to between tho committee having in charge this owrk and those having in Charge the publication of the law review to have the•" annotations published from time to time in the law N>View, thua•·m.aking them available to the profession of our otate. At prssant, there seems to be no other av&ilable m6thod of p;etting theee annotations into print. May l suggest thllt pos~1bly the ·univBrsity might furnish f1nnncial aid lookine; .to the continued publication ot: our law review? It would be but a comparatively smnll item of expense, X apprehend; and one well worthy of being made by the University 1f l.t hils any funds auallab1e for such a purpose. I understand this matter will soon be presented to you by others, some

Very respectfully,

(Signed} Emmett N. Po.rl.:ar :C:NP:Q





JOHN RUPP (interview) President, 1937 Of Counsel with Schweppe, Krug & Tausend, Seattle, Washington RUNNING THE REVIEW

I served as president in 1936 and '37; I had been on the law review board the previous year. The faculty selected the leading articles. AI Harsch was the faculty advisor. Students didn't handle articles at all; all they did was to write notes and comments. A note was supposed to be a review of the case. It was okay to editorialize, but it wasn't required. The goal of the case note was to invite attention to the case. When I was president, the editorial board met once a week. We would read the Washington and federal ad vance sheets, and we would assign case notes to people that we thought would do a good job writing them. It was a lot of dog work. The Review came out on time when I was a student. I do not remember feeling particularly exhausted by my work on the Review, either. It was just one of those things. The Review was a lot smaller-a lot less formal-than it is today. I rather liked the work I did; it made you read cases and do writing that you wouldn't have done otherwise. WRITING A STUDENT PIECE

Students were supposed to go to the library andresearch the case they were writing about. I had to write a thesis to get my Juris Doctor degree, in addition to maintaining a B average. I think that the class of 1937 was the last class until recently to award a J.D. degree. Dean Falknor advised me to get that degree; I remember him telling me, ,'You never know where life will take you." The thesis was entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Lands in Washington," and it was published as a lead article in the Review. I was the expert in that field, and here I was just a green pea out of law school. When I was in law school, you could get in with only two years of college down. In another three years, you could get a Bachelor of Laws degree. The J.D. degree was something extra.






We did not use the University printer, we used a private printer. I don't recall any great difficulties with the process. I did the preparation for the printer, and would send the manuscript for the book downtown. The printer would then typeset it using a linotype machine, a slow process. We got the galley proofs back raw, right out of the machine. Both the galleys and the later page proofs were printed on long pieces of paper. Footnotes were always a pesky problem, but the difficultywasprimarilymechanical.Ihavealwaysthoughtthat whole page footnotes are a barbarism. I think the total lapse of time between the final stage of editing and the end of the printing process was about one month. WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW AND STATE BAR JOURNAL

The Review was affiliated with the state bar association when I was there. Every year, one issue of the Review was devoted to the proceedings of the annual meeting of the state bar. There was a little bit from the bar in other issues, too. All the members of the bar got a free copy of the Review in those days. This would be impractical now; but thatwas back in 1935, when the largest firm in Seattle had 12 attorneys. These days, the mailing costs alone would be prohibitive. I felt that the combination of the state bar news with the Review was an anomaly. A bar journal should be more current than a law review-it should have news in it. If a law review only comes out four times a year, it's hard to include any timely news. The Review and the State Bar Journal did not belong together. The arrangement between the Review and the bar was a curse to the faculty. They felt that other professors would regard them as hopelessly parochial; they were afraid that the Washington Law Review was not perceived as a serious publication-it was just for Washington lawyers. It was this feeling which led to the decision to separate the two publications, I think. The bar association was not happy about things, either. The board of governors had tried to opt out of the arrangement and create a new monthly journal. WOruaNGDuruNGLAWSCHOOL

At the same time I was serving on the Review, I had a





part time job at the King County Law Library. I was the assistant law librarian. Part of my job was to assemble the looseleaf and CCH binders. As a law librarian, I got to see the less apt side of practitioners' lives. They were not very well versed in the usage of textbooks in those days. During school, some people had todrop out to support their families. One guy I remember sold silk stockings door to door. The faculty ad vised us against working our ways through law school. They feltit was a distraction. But some people just had to do it. One fellow was a hamburgerflipper, and he always showed up to class redolent of hamburger grease. And I had my job on the night shift at the King County Law Library. FINDING A JOB

In 1937, when I graduated, any job was a good job. The folklore is that the Depression started in 1929 and ended when FDR took office. That's not true-World War II got us out of the Depression. A lot of my friends and claSsmates could not find work in the legal profession; what jobs they could find were barely enough for lunch money. Law review graduates did not have the employment advantages they have today. After graduation, I got a job paying $1500 per year. I clerked for Chief Justice Steinert right after the Washington Supreme Court started its clerkship program. MARIAN G. GALLAGHER (interview) Class of 1937 Law Review Business Manager, 1956-1980 Former Professor of Law and Law Librarian for the University of Washington Retired, Seattle, Washington


I was on the law review in 1936 and 1937. As I recall, it was somewhat of an amateurish operation. We didn't do any real editing or selecting of articles. John Rupp, who was the president of the Review, was a real leader, though. No one on the Review did anything on his own-they waited for John to structure all their jobs. He had a neat way of handling personnel. When I was a third year student, I got panicky about exams and decided to resign. I told John Rupp about this, and he looked at me and






said, "Stick around." I decided to. WRITING A STUDENT PIECE

I wrote two case notes. I was very bored with the first one, and as a result, it wasn't very good. I think it had something to do with public utilities, which was a new topic in the law schools of the day, The second case note I wrote after I tried to resign, and I liked doing that one. Dean Falknor suggested that I write on that case; he had been personally involved in the litigation and gave me some valuable guidance. LAW REVIEW OFFICES

Prior to moving into the new Condon Hall, the law review occupied a large room in the basement of old Condon Hall. As the review expanded, this space became inadequate, and the students were happy with the new building because they had an entire floor to themselves. The faculty objected to the fact that the law review floor had the best view in the building. The view from the eighth floor was a "sit down view" because if you stood up, you would be looking at a wall. Since law review members do all their work sitting down, why not a sit down view?



As the letter on the following page testifies, some students got the chance to spend an extra year in Condon Hall.






Letter from

decision to

Dean Judson Faulknor

establish a four-

expLaining the


year law school

Till: FOOl! YVJ! IXltlltSJI - J. llRU7 S1'UIIlDr <li»CBRIIJIC ITS OOIITilft'

&!Ill '!U RUS0113 FOR Till CHLIQJt

B:r Judacn



(lle&J:J. of 0111-rerdt.T or lr811hhgton

three tD fO"(Ir



!be plan na appro'nd !'J' tba Board ot R.sanu at tbair

aeattag on 8&tun!aJr, JllDUAf'T llitb, l9S8.

It bu b.,.D ob-rloua tor a loAg Uaa that a 1....-t.baDlDg ot tba •t.atld&.rd

1Dto Un.e •lt.b the D<ICallslUIII or pnoaant. d.ay coDdit.1o....,. luLl.t eentury the at.and'lrd law course hu hflen


For appron...t.1.7

at. t..l>Na yun.


But dllr"illl/

that per1.o4 there bU beea t>Ot. ol1ly " t.Hmell4oua danlopoant 1n llhat WIT be rougbl,y ea.Ued tba old Chlda ot t.ha law, but t.hara ha-ra been 1.114 ue,

..... ,..... praot.ttioner of fUture ought. t.o raoaln 110M tr&lDltl& aDd 1a.tnt01.lo... Typical are the rtaldo or IDao- TuaUon, ~ llajrulat.ioo, jda1Jll-

atraUft Law, Labor t.w, Social S.our1t;y Leghl..&Uon, U.d Publ1o lltU!

n.e law teacher reela that ba 1a acrrect. lu aa.-!.1>1 t.bat 1118 yaara, lt ha 1a


adrtaa aM. repre . .nt

hia cUants



ot U.. ,...._

nil - t

the raorpOWilb1UU•• ot hlo profaaaion, whatbar he be 1.D pr1-rat. praot.loe or

publle alll"Yioe,


to han aoae

tnat.nlct.ioD 1D respect. t.o


Yet the raet. h




t.h••• aatt.ra aDd - .

t.ha\ lmder • t.h,... )'IIU l.&w



1 9 4 3 -


4 5

CLYDE R. MAXWELL (letter) President, 1945 Sole Practitioner, Irvine, California THEW AR YEARS

I was editor of the law review during the war years of 1943--45. There was an extreme shortage of students at the law school at that time,andasaconsequencealrnost every third and fourth year student was on the staff. Many of our articles were gleaned from papers written for other purposes and from members of the faculty.






WILLARD A. ZELLMER (letter) Contributions Editor, 1946 Judge, Superior Court of the State of Washington for Lincoln County, Davenport, Washington AFTER THEW AR

I served on the Review right at the end of World VVar II and right after the peace was declared in Germany and then in Japan. This was before the great rush of students back to school and to law school. In fact, the enrollment at the law school was rather slim most of the time I was there. I was the Contributions Editor; that is, I encouraged, cajoled1 and used whatever other means were available to get the articles, comments, and case notes in and organized for publication. It seems we had a rather relaxed schedule, but most of the time, the Review came out on time. ~

1 9 4 8

JENNINGS P. FELIX (letter) President, 1948 Partner with Felix, Zimmar & Smith, Seattle, Washitzgton

In 1945a number of us who had been in law school prior 29




to World War ll returned to law schooL Many returning veterans also started law school at this time. There was a rather mature group, including officers of all ranks, most of whom outranked the professors at the school. I returned as an infantry officer after having spent some time in an Army hospital, having been injured in action in Germany, and was elected editor for the 1947-1948 school year. STUDENT BOARD THREATENS TO RESIGN

I and the others on the Review were surprised to ieam that a professor was the advisor to the law review and instead of being an advisor, was simply telling us what to do. This was contrary to our feeling that this was a student law review. The board of the Review elected me to meet this professor in his office and discuss our concerns with him. I did, accompanied by Stuart Oles, then the assistant editor. The professor, to say the least, was more than irked and he apparently immediately complained to DeanJudsonFalknor, who within a week called me into his office to determine what the problems were. I advised the Dean (who was an excellent administrator) of the feelings of the board. Further, the board had empowered me to say that in the event it wasn't a student controlled and managed review, subject to consultation and advice but not control of the faculty, that we were all prepared to resign. That terminated the discussion and shortly thereafter the professor was replaced. REVIEW OF FAR EASTERN LAW STARTED

During my time on the Review we inaugurated a review of Japanese law under the administration of General Douglas MacArthur. This was not at all well received by many practicing attorneys, who felt this was a "damn fool" thing to spend their money on-bar dues paid for the Review. They were interested in Washington law and nothing else.






Letter from

to establish Far

Dean Falknor ex-

Eastern section.

plaining decision


~1U.ct ~ODd

B• .All111

UO :r..tuoa.tlOC> Halt OepiUI

D.aT llll'. .Ullllt J». pur11wulo at yoW"


at ol.ll' -.r.,._e, l..t


l •

1WmltU...C tide 111corandua. 1.n aupport or our ,...queat. tor D additiaaal ap.o proprlatiOoD. tr~a tho lhl vou1 ty 1.n aid ol tho Walh.1zl.ctca Rni• 1a ordv to 1.11 to iaollado in u.oh hll\le ot tho Ben• a . . aticm 4eYoto4 to J'ar laltono 1••


At the pre ..nt time no aerioan losal porio41oal h 'Y•t•atioall:r ln -n- of our loaatiCIII. a-&r&phioally, azul also tllld~ into uoDunt the ,.roy tiDe oi:U11 wh1oh our library h&.a IO.Aiio in tha t1dd of Japan••• 111d ehlna•• 1•, it le our opinlCIII tll&t tho 1nolui11on or •Uon & dO)IArtnumt l.a partloulo..rly te&oiblo l.D 0\U' JI..,S.-, Uld we are csontidout tho.t the auooentul davelopuowt or thie pr<'j..,t ..,ul4 aU. t;ra•tly to tha diat.inotion D.r,cl preatt:;e of our periodico.l. It ie oW' plm to 1noludo 1n tho aactian oontrlbutlant by American 1-.yere who are familiar w!.th clevelopmallt& in J&.J>Alllllo Chlneae, and !;uoslan la. and &I ••u. t4 .... d_..,or to obta.:ln ·,.ort!urMlt oontrib\ltiona frOID jucl~;u, l.o...y .. ro, and lur t.eaohorr• of diot.lnotion iu Ju.pan, Chin-, the Philippine lllD.rul.a. Ia.dGDidA, and other •ooti01U ot tho Fa.r Ecut, Wa think al.•o tl•at auoh a aoot1CIII abauld 1noluda tr&na1At1Ma nC 1ntereating lll!d tl,;r.Hloant oCIIIIII\anta app ...rl.D(I 1n th• oon~porsry ~oviot proa• l!ld porlod1calo in rororonoe to tho auali~ loc;ol eyatam ..,4 to donloflll<mto h• tho nunhn llDI'. tr.atillli developnomt. in thh import.nt a;rea..

Dr. toylor, the h"ad or the Far j,;utorn Daparbnomt, haa appro-..4 the and it ia eo:nt ..(•htod tha.t the fu I:utorn c.f cur JioYhar will be jointly aponoored and .,.pervts"d b1• t.ho J.a.w S3hool a<Ld the Far .... ton. J)opartmoot, llr. F.dward lf, All1111 ot tho Se&ttlo 'oo.r, who ha.a lQII.£ b~& uUw !.n tbe Soot1CZJ. of' I!>torl\o.t\ona.l IUld Cao.p&rl.tlv• t - of tho .61aor1- Jia:r &.acolation, ho.o a.l1o axpreaaocl hie approv~l or the propo5al,an4 will, I . . .ur1, bo glad to ooop4rate 1n eve~ way. PI'O(:I"'IIn,

Aaido !'rOI'I advert! tin& revenue and out-ot··atat;o aubnr1pt1CIIIa the ~!.view h fir.anoed by aubddiol !'r- tb.o WaahUigtQD. Btat.a Jia:r Aaaooiatian .,.,d !'rom the l.&liveraity, If we are ta meet our reopandbll.l.ty to the local proreaa1oa it 11 necoooary that the preoent eoopa ot th• aiTl ... be w.o.intoJ.nod ..,d the.t prilot.ry a:uphAeh aonti1n•o to be pla.oad em t.b.e 1 - ot the 1tata o£ lluhlnr,ton. 'rho ror~lt ia the.t a Far lla1t.oru noouaaril¥ wuld h.a.u to be 1noludod u an addition to *"d not 1.n o1.1batitutiC11 ot-to· rlal. pruantly tnalucled, WhU1 the n- .. atillll would, no 4ollht., N o£ OCI1114arabh tnteroot to & ,;ood many .,..bora o£ tha looal prot•uiGD, U; h ..,-idmt, - th.inll:, t.h.o.t euoh a eeoti= would not b111 10 <llrootly or l.a1uod1at.aly rela.tod to the 1ntero1t1 ot the looal proflu!on ao t4' a recau•urt for addl tJ.oaal •ub•1<1¥ trcm tho lla.ah.ington St&t• il&.J' uaoo1&Uan.

Wuhine;tan X...






As you know, the law review did have a Far Eastern section for a time, and it was not a vocal success. It was not successful because there was not a great deal of interest in Chinese and Japanese ,law; no one knew anything about it, either. The biggest flap occurred when a Harvard professor by the name of Hazzard wrote a lead article for the Far Eastern section entitled ''Justice in Russia." We thought that this would be a feather in the Review's cap because Hazzard was a distinguished scholar and his article was one of a very few dealing with the topic. The Review published the article, and the whole eastern side of the state of Washington erupted: "There is no justice in Russia. Why are you publishing this propaganda?" The Seattle-King County Bar Association used to have an annual skit at its Christmas party. The attorneys who were involved in it took it seriously, and lhe skits were always entertaining. One year, the subject of the skit was a Washington Law Review meeting in which the ~~editors" were discussing a case note on the application of the last clear chance doctrine to rickshaw driving. This was all done in costume, complete with Japanese accents. I think that was the final nail in the coffin.



JOANN R. LOCKE (interview) Editor-in-Chief, 1951 Attonzey with McKisson and Sargent, Seattle, Washington

[Editors' Note: JoAnn Locke was one of the first women Editors-inChief of the Washington Law Review.] ELECTED EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

There were only six women in law school while I was there. When I was in law school, the program was four years. However, the legislature awarded returning veterans two quarters credit for their service, so people were graduating at various times. There were three Editors-in-Chief during 1951. The members elected the editor. I think I was the most qualified




and had the grades. But each of the men wanted the honor. So as they graduated, they elected one man after another, before giving it to me. FELLOW MEMBERS

Most of the people in my cla.Ss were years and years older than I was. They were all returning Gl's. I went straight from high school into college. So, I was not only years younger, but entirely different. They were all married and I was a young woman. Since almost all the men were on the GI bill they got allotments of supplies. These supplies included an allotment of paper and notebooks which was about ten times more than anybody could use. So they would generously put it out for anybody who wanted it. We used a lot of these supplies in the Law Review office. 路 BOARD MEETINGS

One of my responsibilities as the editor was to preside over the weekly board meetings. At those meetings everybody would report on recent cases, inqicating whether they were worthy of a note. Then we would vote on the issue. In those days, if one did not smoke, one was on the outside rather than the inside. A couple of people smoked cigars which were just terrible. We would sit there in those blue clouds of smoke and I would quietly strangle. However, you did not complain or you would be considered odd. THE STUDENT LOUNGES When I was in law school there were separate lounges

for men and women. The men's lounge was a huge room at the end of the law school, a great big room with lockers and benches. Women were not allowed to enter the door. I remember that once or twice I had to ask a man in the lounge something and tried to venture into the hallowed precincts of the men's lounge. I got very dirty stares. The women's lounge was for the students, the secretaries and all the women employees in the school. It was very nice, but it was just a small room with couches and lockers. WOMEN LAWYERS I won first prize in an estate planning contest sponsored by the Probate Division of the Bar Association and the Trust






Insurance Council. They had an award dinner at the College Club. Marian Gallagher and I both went. We had to go in the back door because the club was for men only. Then, when the award was delivered, some gentleman stood and announced how unusual it was that a woman won the award. I don't like that sort of thing, but that is how times were. When I went to get a job, I couldn't find one. They all wanted to hire me as a secretary. I never learned to type, because it was a handicap. Since I couldn't type I couldn't be a secretary. This was a disappointing situation to employers because if I had been able to type they could have got a top legal scholar for secretary's wages. In looking for a job, I went to every law office in the city of Seattle that had three names on the door. That was a lot of offices. I never cracked the big firms. I was on my second time around before I got a temporary position.







clipping of JoAnn Locke with other Board members.


PUT OUT REVIEW-Miss JoAnn H. Locke, University o>t WashJngton Law School coed from Everett, recently appointed editor-In路 chief of the Washington Law Review, plans futu~ editions of the student-edited quarterly with her assistants. John Hansler (left) and John Huston, both of 路Tacoma, have been named business man路 ager and associated editor respectively. Miss Locke, a fourth-year law student, is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Locke, 2209 Hoyt Avenue. She is a member of Si~;ma. Epsilon Sigma, and Phi Beta Kappa, scholastia bonoraries. The Washing-ton Law Review Is the trade journal for all Washington State members of the Bar. The students were chosen on 'the basis of high scholarship and out&tanding ability ln the field of law.-(James 0. Sneddon Photo.)





JOHN HUSTON (interview) Editor-in-Chief, 1952 Member of Law Review Board of Trustees Professor of Law, Seattle, Washington ENTERING LAW SCHOOL

When we entered the law school it was a four-year program. One day the Dean or someone decided that we were back to a three-year law school, but that our class would go seven more quarters. They annou:nced that we would go three quarters and a summer and the following three quarters. That was in 1950 and we went straight through 'til June of 1952, when the class graduated. Our new law review executive board was in spring and summer quarters. We were the officiallawreview board through the non.:..summer of 1951 and on into 1952. We have always prided ourselves as being the ones who were in office for the greatest number of mandatory terms.

THE STUDENT BODY We had a pretty shook up student body. The country had just gotten out of World War II, and was just getting into the war with Korea. A lot of guys had stayed in the Reserves after WW II, but they were trying hard to get out of the Reserves in the fifties. I took Air Force ROTC in my third year oflaw school. No one at the time said that taking ROTC was a silly thing. When the Chinese Army went into Korea, we were all certain that it was WW III. No one was all that red hot about going back into the service. It was these kinds of fears that led the faculty to say some unkind things about out class, that our performance was sporadic. We agreed that we had not performed consistently, but we performed as well as we could. It's just that every once in a while the news flashes would set us off. PRINTER PROBLEMS

The University printer was not very competent, and we had some trouble. But the students who had come back to school from the war were not in the mood to pick fights. All they wanted was to cooperate and graduate. We looked at the whole mess with the printer and decided that there was no way that we could fix things in a short time. They hassled us and we





hassled them. That's about all that happened. But they never got anything out on time. 路 STUDENT PIECES

The first thing we had to do to print the student pieces was to get them written, and that was a very large order. I had one very good friend, and I remember tearing up this beautiful law review certificate that he never received because he never got his stuff in. You got your law review certificate if you got your piece published or to a publishable state. But there wasn't any reason to hassle people. If you wanted to turn it in, we would blue pencil the hell out of it. If you didn't turn it in, we didn't care. Anyway, those people were hassle-proof. Guys who had been in the service for two and three years in wartime, there's nothing you can do to hassle them. FREE DENTAL CARE

The Dental School was just beginning in those days, and I was rooming with a dental student. The dental students had a hard time getting bodies to practice on so I was designated the dental school panderer. As a result, we were probably the most dentally sound law review board that was ever around here. I still have one of the fillings I got then. The hardest kind of patient for the dental students to find was one without the two front incisor teeth. People will always get those teeth replaced because they look so funny without them. Now, the one thing you got as editor-in-chief was the law review phone. One day _the phone rang, and my roommate the dentist was on the line. He said there was big trouble down at the dental school, and he needed a patient who was missing a central incisor. I told him that he knew as well as I did that there was no place to find someone who was missing a central incisor. Just then, a board member, who since became a very prominent practitioner, stuck his head in and gave me a big grin, and he's got no central incisors! I said, /FWhat happened to you?" He said, "We cracked up the car." So we sent him down to the dental school and he got about $1500 worth of free dental work.






JAMES M. DOLUVER (interview) Contributions Editor, 1952 Justice, Washington State Supreme Court2 Olympia, Washington REFLECTIONS ON LAW REVIEW MEMBERSHIP

I felt very privileged to be a member of the Law Review. I wanted it and wanted to be on the editorial staff. One of the reasons membership was valued so highly was because the Law Review had their own room. The idea of being a student who was set apart but had a separate facility in the building was a pleasant one. l suppose that is snobbisn1 and elitism of the worst sort, but there it is. This advantage of membership was not that important to me because I had my cave in the library. I homesteaded in the stacks, so I didn't need to worry about having a place to study. It was cluttered and crowded but my recollection is that I was not displeased with my study space. 1953-54 Editorial Board: Hugh McGough,

Carlson, Dave Riveland, [eJ

Robert]. Muckle-

Michael Mines.

stone, Myron J.






During the year that I was the Contributions Editor I also wrote a student comment. In the scheme of things, it was probably one of the worst comments ever written.I confess that I have not read the thing since it was published, and I refuse to go back and look at it. I had a terrible time. I think it was about the Sales Act or some incomprehensible thing. It was not assigned, but suggested, by a member of the faculty. I tried desperately to get a handle on the topic. I had a very hard time getting it sorted out in my head, and then getting it on paper. I think I finally made some point. Whether it was worth making is another matter. In spite of these problems, however, I enjoyed the process. I liked to write and completing the comment was something of an accomplishment. DEAN GEORGE NEFF STEVENS (interview)

Dean of the Law School1952-1962 Retired, Lacey, Washington

When I was the Dean, we were both the Washington Law Review and the State Bar Journal. The incident I remember the most was University President Odegaard questioning the law review's receipt of University funds. The law revie\v wanted to pay some speakers to come to a banquet, and President Odegaard objected. There was also talk of the faculty taking over the Review. That was a particularly objectionable idea. Toward the end of my term as Dean, in order to avoid these problems, we decided to incorporate the Review and change the relationship with the University. Also toward the end of my term as Dean, the Review severed its partnership with the state bar association. The Review originally became involved with the bar association for purely financial reasons. But by the time I got there, it really wasn't working well. The material the bar was giving us was just routine, like the minutes of meetings. The Review also didn't need the bar's financial assistance. The two organizations were different; they had two different aims and objectives. But our circulation was wonderfuL This situation occurred because of our affiliation with the bar association. We





sent a copy to every lawyer in the state, whether they wanted it or not. They even read it sometimes.




I became the Review's faculty business manager in 1956. John Richards had had that job for a number of years previous to that. I took over for him when he went on sabbatical, and when he returned~ he wouldn't take the job back. I noticed some changes in the Review. It had become an independent student activity. When I was a student on law review, the faculty pretty much censored everything. But the law review students were fairly similar over the years. A lot depended on the personality of the editor-in-chief and the student business manager, though. Some editors were irritants becausetheyweren'twillingto stay within the budgetthey ordered as many pages as they felt like ordering. I remember one group in particular. The outgoing editorial board threw a big party to commemorate the election of new officers. They went to the most expensive restaurant in town, and ordered fine wine and all kinds of drinks. They sent the law review the bill.







Letter an

between Law

advisability of continuing

Review and State

Bar JournaL


l&udl ., 1Ml



IIIII' Uaoo1atlou.



....s U!Unnlit)'

•t-• WUUqt• Ita"

ol WUlidq'tM . _ ~ tw

11M lluton o.f tliU Joint p\WHcaUOil n1nu.n l& aat ~~~tt tullr l.a lleaA sc•-,.. • _ ..&A4,. ot "•l'U ll7, tnt, a44Ma...t lo ) ' - • I t

1r.Gar1ck P, Tat..-,


aha.a tbat Jor



)*&t* -.~-...


l$311 -....1 lWi, tile illlr M>O~X>iati<m c""'trl.l.ut..., tu u ... ot tho< ~ •uuetanthll;y '"""" tl""" tb.e _....,.4 wht@ . . . """•r11o11t..S bJ u..,.uur. y,,,... .ll>tll •kl'01Wh t.b.e :Hr•t '1,\IU'~er t.>1. l~it u

..W1U.,..d lO>I'r"'l'•1•H= l;r""" ~be II<U.v•nHy f<>~ u ... •l""cial Fez "-et.a.v•, ~t~a~o..-.J.: bt tho lW!*Y1~w ~ tt.w.l lAu.v•-"•it.r'• l . r JAat X... Ututa, b~4t t4G l.hllv•r~ \ ..t&! C..... UtliUtlO>l, to.~ t!UIA ~,..., liAr .!uoaoct<Hl<m' "• Tl.l• U..iv•r•HJ'¥ o-tO'liiiiUOA i<l&' tu hv!•" prllji<Or,· .... v..••• "'""'l.i.X~l.lll4 t<> la& t.o.lUI>'! ""' l!4¥ Aa•u•••t"~ ~ ~;ontl'ibuU"n WitH l!l1>2• w!l.>n l.b4 !'U ~.H .. nl ,..,.,u..,. """' .ta.. ~



Tile p•u;t<;Mt •Mel> toli........a 111:!12 lfll& r. iN>rl.o4 of



U&i'~r•ity'a approp~riat1UOM bava 1$Qcoac~ to ..-t ~ ~·· ......u •bH• tll4 u.r ..._.~Uti®'a t>Ot. l'b.$ Cluln .....-lu• ~ U>c""'"' allld up..uo4H!.Il'!ll!ll t= l!Ot.l thlt~ lll&l.



h""' lfillfi l!H1 tlil!l> li6r Aaaoci'lti<>n o""'trlbut..O $2ll, Hl to llu.lnnHy's ~l2,oOO, ol' lit !l'llr c•uat el> total ll\11:>$14)'. ,.._ Ul51





\lllU•••·.. u:r

$llll,::l&tl, or e2 , ... o.. u

.,....... u ... t...a



to tu ...,.

of tu •-1<IJ.

l a c - !ra= •-ur1pU....., a..t bt.<lll. laaUolll' ••1••~ &114 tu lf&lllle ·ol llll• aol4 atoor., &boul<l ll.o cnn!lt.O pa.rtlr \o U1t1 Dar Aaaw1atl(ll&l aDd li>•LUlJ t• tM 1h>l••·n1\J, ....a U Uta .,....~.t•n• Ul 4Uaol....S, ,..,... &rr&Q&•-zot abol.IU M a&<le to ~~~~~·t• tile Sal' AallooiaUM tor ~u ~ of t..tut u••t•~

laco;ot tor lha• p\lbl111 H!at10G& llduaupo IIi •••1"& U.. a.v1.,. 1& tb.e Uor•rr of ......., t&ahiqlozo lawyar, n .. ll'U<Of-At dtll ~ A.o•o<:btt"" 40 loq<u u prolitabl• \o ~M I.IIUv•nH:r. Joiat publ1oatioa aDd • - t i t ..t1uc p&l4 a"bacr1pt1oAa tor Jlolr ual:l<tnalp -111-. 11.1.-t nel&lt 1a tlr111M ....._,.. 1






1 9 5 8 WILLIAM B. STOEBUCK (interview) Editor-in-Chief, 1958-59 Professor of Law, Seattle, Washington


I had two best experiences. One, when I was elected editor. The other was when I turned it over to the next editor. THE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW AND BAR JOURNAL

In my days we had a tie-in with the state bar association. They gave us the grand sum of $1.00 per member. The editor of the review, sometimes accompanied by the dean, made an annual pilgrimage down to the office of the bar association to try to get that up. Either that or to try to sever the formal relationship with the bar association. Dean Stevens and I worked on that problem without any success. A couple of years later, one of the editors finally had the guts to sever the relationship with the bar association. I wasn't quite decisive enough to do it. The bar association got a great deal for its money. It not only got a survey issue (on Washington law), but also they had a claim to part of one issue, usually the one that came out in December, to report the very boring, drab proceedings of the state bar convention. That was a drag on the Review,particularly disliked. It was totally nonscholarly. We got out from under that my year. DEADLINES

(Question: Were the books published on tirne?)Oh, yes. I don't think they were ever over six months behind. WARREN SHATIUCK STORY

Warren Shattuck wrote two or three major, long articles on Washington contract law. He and Muriel Mawer had written Washington annotations to the Restatement of Contracts in 1937 or 1938. In essence, what Warren Shattuck was doing was updating the Washington annotations. He published two or three very substantial, very fine articles on Washington contract law. Shattuck has his own way of speaking and thinking about certain things. He had this word, "proffer." He had a





special meaning for "proffer." It was negotiations leading up to an offer. I knew this perfectly well, but it was not a standard contracts term. So, I went to his office and said, "Professor Shattuck, I don't know what you mean by this word 'proffer."' And he said," A proffer is a proffer." That didn't get us very far in our conversation. We went into the library to look in the dictionary to find out what "proffer" meant. I asked him, "Your mean offer?" "No/' he said, "Proffer is not an offer. A proffer is a proffer." So we looked in the dictionary under proffer and the first thing it says is "offer." He looked stricken and said, "That's not what I mean." Knowing full well what he meant, I said, "Well, let's just leave it in the article. Most lawyers in that state have probably studied w1der you and will know what it means, anyway." FRED BRUHN (letter) Associate Editor, 1959 Vice President and General Counsel, Safeco Corporation, Seattle, Washington

ANOTHER SHATTUCK STORY Professor Warren Shattuck was a living legend-tall, emaciated, unsmiling, brilliant to the point of being virtually incomprehensible except to a special few. Generations of Condon Hall denizens lived in terror of the man. So when his massive manuscript for a review of twenty years of Washington contract law started coming into the law review offices, I was a bit apprehensive just on general principles. (I was copy editor-. the person who had the duty to correct the author's bad citations and solecisms.) Shattuck's copy, like everything else he did, was a "sacred cow," not to be questioned by mere mortals. So, when I realized that the great man had apparently misspelled the same word at least fifty times, I knew he and I were on a collision course and I was in trouble-deep, deep trouble. In his paper, Professor Shattuck would discuss a case and then, often in a footnote, would suggest a drafting technique by which the careful lawyer could avoid the problem the case represented. He quite favored the word "technique," using it over and over again. But he spelled it "technic." That seemed clearly wrong to my eye and ear, so I screwed up my





courage, went up to his office and told him I was going to change it. ,. He didn't react kindly. l don't recall the words he used, but the sense was, 'Who the hell do you think you are, young man? The two words are synonymous/ and Y11 pick whichever I choose:'' And he was right. The dictionary gives ~~technique" as one of the meanings of ''technic." But I didn't give up. The words may be synonyms, I thought, but they aren't pronounced the same. In "technique" the accent is on the second syllable; in "technic" on the first. I had never heard the professor pronounce the word. So I went back to his office on a different errand and, when we were through with that, I asked, "What was that word we were arguing about last week?" "Technique," cametheanswer,loud and clear. What? "Technique!n louder and clearer. "Aha/' I said. "You're saying one word and spelling another. I was righ~ all along." He either grimaced or smiled-I like to think he smiled. uco ahead and change it, Mr. Editor.u As they say in baseball, you could look it up. MARJORIE DICK ROMBAUER (interview) Casenote Survey Editor, 1960 Professor of Law,

Seattle, Washington LAVv REVIEW "HAZING"

1 was on the Review from 1958 to 1960. On thing I remember about Law Review was that they had a kind of hazing that was later dropped. We had to clean the Review offices including the windows. Now it may be that that duty was trumped up by my editor, butit was obnoxious enough to one student that he dropped of Law Review because it simply had nothing to do with the honor that had been bestowed upon him.

In general our group was fairly studious. I think the only problem among our group was who would clean the coffee pot. CASENOTE EDITOR

1was the only editor for student pieces until [the Editorin-Chief] got them. We went to three, four, five drafts per student. It was a full time job. Even though we tried to go into





more depth my year, they were still superficial in comparison to the case comments that you get now. LAW SCHOOL BANQUETS

The Law Review banquet was held at the College Club downtown. That is an interesting story in itself. At the College Club the women had to go up the back steps. They couldn't go in through the front door. That is why the College Club went off the list. When we were students, spouses were not invited to law school banquets. This situation changed later when Justice William 0. Douglas was invited to a banquet. That year, Justice Douglas, who had just gotten married to a young lawyer, was invited to the banquet accompanied by his spouse. So the word went out: "Spouses are invited to law school banquets." [Edi-

tors' Note: Spouses have been invited to the banquet ever since then.] fa,


DANIEL B. RITIER (letter) Casenote Editor, 1963 Partner with Davis, Wright and Jones, Seattle, Washington NEW STAFF POSITION

In 1962 we added a new staff position: Doughnut Editor. It was his responsibility each morning, en route to our office in the basement of old Condon Hall, to stop and pick up doughnuts for the rest of the law review staff. Although this editor was never acknowledged on the masthead, I remember him well, because I was trying as usual to diet and for several weeks after this new position was established my lunch consisted of a big glazed doughnut washed down by Metrecal.






Dean Lehan Tunks came along in the early 1960's. He had imagination and the most marvelous vision about what could be done in a law school setting. He saw the Review as the ultimate possibility for students. Then, of course, Dick Kummert was hired and became the advisor. Between the two of them there was this pressure to improve the quality of the Review and give it higher status. That was really the beginning of the current review. ' RICHARD 0. KUMMERT (interview)

Law Review Advisor, 1965-present Professor of Law, Seattle, Washington

When I started as faculty advisor, law review members were required to write two casenotes and a comment. The effect of that requirement was that the casenotes were not well researched and students were not able to edit during their third year because they were writing a comment. To improve the quality of the Review, we had to change the system. That is when students began to write only one piece. In the late sixties casenotes were somewhat shorter than they are today.






MARIAN G. GALLAGHER (interview}.r'

From time to time, the Review has been concerned that it was too provincial. Dean Tunks certainly had that concern. He wanted to change the title of the Review to ''The University of Washington Law Review' because he felt that the existing title conveyed the idea that the Review was only interested in Washington state law. I resisted that idea because I felt that the Review would just get lumped with the rest of the ''University of ... " law reviews. The board of trustees was divided over the issue, but the Dean eventually won out The book was sent to the University printer, and the title pagedidsay ''The University of Washington Law Review." But the printer must have been on my side, because he goofed and the cover came out as "Washington Law Review,"

1 9 6 4


MICHAEL D. GARVEY (letter) Articles Editor, 1964 Partner with Garvey, Schubert & Barer, Seattle, Washington THE BIRTH OF A LAW FIRM

Bill Houger, Ken Schubert and myself were in the same class ('64) and all "made'' the Review starting in our second year. In those days qualification was based solely on first-year grades. In "old" Condon Halt the law review consisted of three small offices in the basement together with a smaller anteroom. The middle office belonged to the Editor-in-Chief, the east office was "owned" by the other editors and the rest of us were confined to the west office. It was in that west office that the three of us decided that we already knew enough to practice law and determined that we were too impatient to wait 5 or 6 years to become partners-whatever that meant. And so, what is now Garvey, Schubert & Barer was born in that office. The next year the three of us moved into the east office and Ken Schubert, who became Comments Editor, undertook a life-long (but futile) role of becoming my personal Editor-inChief. Bill, on the other hand, was never one to battle windmills, and so became the Symposium Editor. It was in that office that






the three of us developed a working relationship and set the stage for being life-long friends. So, the roots of my career and many of my friendships come from those two years on the Review and as a result, I will be forever grateful for that experience. I hope that the current members will be able to look back 25 years from now with the same fond memories. RICHARD 0. KUMMERT (interview) LAWSUIT AGAINST THE LAW REVIEW

In the early 1970's, there was a Department editor who was searching for a review of a criminal law treatise. The editor asked three or Jour law professors to review the book, without success. As the editor was finishing his tenure on the review, he approached an attorney and asked him to write it. The attorney agreed to do so. Several months later the manuscript arrived in the offices of the newly appointed editors. They were not expecting the article and rejected it. So the author sued the Law Review for quantum meruit. The case went to Superior Court. The author said the Review had promised to publish his article. The Review claimed that the editor had simply promised to consider the book review when it was published. After one and a half days of testimony Judge Howard found in favor of the Review, but not without giving a stem lecture to the Review members.



KARL B. TEGLAND (letter) Recent Developments Editor, 1972 Sole practitioner, Seattle, Washington

Laurie Kohli had a Burt Reynolds centerfold on the wall near her desk, and several of her classmates decided they could improve on it. They posed on my desk, and I took the picture below. We had to take several shots to get one that was even marginally tasteful. I enlarged the picture to poster size and






hung it on the wall of the law review offices, where it remained for several days. 1972 Names withhel.J

to protect the innocent (? ).


GARY W. VANCIL (letter)

Book Review Editor, 1974 Sole Practitioner, Fairbanks, Alaska WATERGATE ERA

In those days President Richard M. Nixon stalked the

land as bold as a Tyrannosaums Rex, scornfully denying any Watergate cover up and asserting that he was "not a crook." As Book Review Editor, I happened onto a book freshly published by Harvard Professor Emeritus Raoul Berger on the constitu-





tional history of impeachment. This was several months before the resignation of Haldeman and Erlichman. I went to see the editor-in-chief with a proposal that my English constitutional law professor, Alfred Bestor, be asked to review the book. He approved the idea and we managed to get the article produced, proofed, and published on schedule. The book review was a scathing analysis of Mr. Berger's historical and constitutional reasoning. The issue was whether the acts of Mr. Nixon constituted high crimes and misdemeanors under the United States Constitution. The dispute was over what sorts of acts historically had sufficed as grounds for impeachment. There had been no book or analysis relating to the impeachment of presidents until the Raoul Berger book. The article got some immediate attention, at least from Mr. Berger.l received a long distance phone call from Harvard University, and Mr. Raoul Berger was on the line. He was furious, to say the least. He was incensed at the Bestor article and demanded the right to write a responding article. The Editor-in-Chief approved the responding article, but cautioned that no reply would be allowed by Professor Bestor. There had been enough squabbling for his tastes. Mr. Berger's article was duly published, calling Professor Bestor to task for various academic short sights. It was fun to this point, but it got very interesting when the gap in the Watergate tapes was found. There began cries for the impeachment of the President. Suddenly the Washington Law Review's debate and Mr. Berger's book were hot. They were the only legal articles on the issue in modem times. Senator Sam Ervin's committee contacted Professor Bester. I have a letter somewhere, signed by Sam Ervin, stating that the House panel was using the Washington Law Review's articles on the Raoul Berger book to establish legal and political positions for the vote on impeachment in the House. Had the President endured impeachment instead of resigning, this would have been an historical note. Another brief historical item. Even presidential assistants must be able to swallow their pride. One morning in 1972, when Mr. Nixon was still in his ascendancy, Egil Krogh, assistant to the President, came to visit professor Arval Morris while we were sitting in Professor Morris' office discussing law review business with him. Egil Krogh came into the office wearing a blue suit. We had no idea






who he was. Professor Morris knew who he was, since he had been a fanner student [and Review rnember-eds.]. Professor Morris knew he was an important man with direct access to President Nixon. Professor Morris asked him to wait outside the door until we were through. Mr. Krogh waited for some time. APLOMB

The class of 1974 was the last law review class to be housed in Condon Hall on the University campus. It is there that I learned what the word "aplomb" means. In 1971, in the great medieval amphitheater on the second floor, property professor Harry Cross addressed the class. He was leaning against the blackboard, hands locked behind his back, chain-reciting from memory a dozen consecutive quotes from Washington state community property cases, when a sudden gust of wind blew open one of the large glass windows and smashed it, cascading glass ten feet down on to the floor behind the students. Harry Cross glanced up once and_, without losing a syllable, continued to lecture. Glass continued to tinkle to the floor. Professor Cross continued to lecture. "HDRNBROJK"

But the greatest degree of aplomb I saw was demonstrated by the law review class of 1973. As first year law review students, my classmates and I were naturally terrorized to let NO error escape our proofreading. Execution was implied to be the penalty. It was to our relief that not one error appeared in the text of that issue. Unfortunately, there was. a typo






1973 "Hornbrook"






1 9 7 5


Joe E. Wishcarnper (Notes and Comments Associate Editor, 1980) wrote us a letter telling of a hoax played on the Review in 1974. The Review decided to publish a co-authored article on the duty to wear seat belts. In a footnote, the authors quoted from an obscure and venerable English sour<;:e. The Review members dutifully searched through the University 1975

The offending footnote (number3).

2. JoHN KEATS, THE INSOLEI'<T CHARIOTS ( 1958). 3. The earliest expression of concern located by the authors, regarding ihe role of vehicular restraint systems in highway safety, was the statement of Earl of Andrews: "Quoth what fool dares! upon the highways of this realm without properly strapping his ass to his cart." Address before His Majesty's Order of Scribes. Hamtin on Tyrne, Clarkshire, England. Oct. 4, 1683, reporud in F. ACCAO, THE BARRISTER'S ToME xvi (1814). It was not until 1964 that most U.S. automobile manufacturers began installing two lap belts in the front seats as standard equipment; and not until 1966 were four lap belts placed in all new cars. By January 196ll. standards issued by the National Highway Safety Bureau (now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) required that lap belts be installed for each seating position in the vehicle and that upper torso restraints be installed for the front seating positions. 32 Fed. Reg. 2408, 2415 (1967). This rule; finally denominated as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. 49 C.F.R. 搂 571.208 (1973) was promulgated under authority of the National Traffic &路Motor Vehide Safety Act of ! 966. 15 U.SC 搂 1381 ( 1970). In addition. seat belt warning devices are now required on vehicles manu路






library system for the source and, upon being unable to locate it, an editor was dispatched to Olympia. The card catalog showed that the library owned the book, but the editor discovered that the book had been checked out. Nevertheless, the authors assured the Review that the quote was accurate, so it was printed. Later, the Review members found out that the authors had fabricated a Library of Congress file card for the nonThe embarrassed


retrad ion.

ERRATA l. It is the general policy of the Washington Law Review, as of most such journals, to certify the authenticity of the sources cited in each article, comment and casenote appearing in the Review. Courts and practitioners rely on the authenticity of cited materials. Accordingly, at the risk of appearing unduly zealous, the Editorial Board requires that each source be physically viewed and the citation checked so as to wan-ant such reliance. A recent exception to this policy reaffirms its validity. In footnote three of Caveat Viator: The Duty to Wear Seat Belts Under Comparative Negligence Law, 50 WASH. L. REV. I, 2 (1974), by John A. Hoglund and A. Peter Parsons, the first paragraph should be deleted. Contrary to numerous personal assurances by the authors that the quoted statement was accurate, the Editorial Board has learned that neither the quote nor the reported source exist. A card on file at the Wasrjngton Supreme Court Law Library, personally viewed by Review personnel, was apparently a forgery, part of a hoax perpetrakd by the authors of the article. While acknowledging the sophistication of the authors' humor, we apologize to our readers for the authors' indiscretion and our dupability. We assure our readers that our policy will be strictly observed in the future. 2. Footnote 15 of Recall: A Time for Reform, 50 WASH. L. REv. 29, 32 (1974), by Michael L. Cohen, should read: "See Note, Re-

call of Public Officers: Discretionary Acts Cannot Be a Sufficient Basis for Recall, 48 WASH. L. REV. 503, 511 (l973) and Note, Sufficiency of Charges ro Support a Recall Election, 8 GONZAGA L. REv. 131,


I 55




existent book and inserted it into the card catalogue. The embarrassed editors published a retraction'lli a later volume.

1 9 7 6 THOM H. GRAAFSTRA (letter) Class of 1976 Partner with Sullivan, Graafstra & Twisselman, Everett, Washington LAW REVIEW WASN'T ALL WORK

I of course have the mundane memories of hours spent on proofing, more hours spent on galley proofing, and even more hours spent on making the prose of supposed learned scholars and article writers articulate, understandable and learned-in-fact. I also remember nerf basketball tournaments. Since none of us had the time or the inclination to play real basketball, a nerf basketball became the object of many of our attentions at odd hours of the day. There was also a contest between certain male and female students on the editorial staff to see who could post the most obscene centerfold from the various journals put out by the adult press. I don't recall this as motivated by any legitimate research-we didn't do an article on obscenity-rather, we probably suffered from otherwise unreleased post-adolescent hormonal urges.



ARDEN J. OLSON (letter) Executive Editor, 1978 Oregon State Department of Justice, Trial Division, Salem, Oregon ORIGIN OF THE GOLDEN TROWEL AWARD

You may be interested to know of the progenitors of the coveted Order of the Golden Trowel. In an effort to recognize excellence in spading and in other routinely unsung acts of drudgery, Managing Editors Dave Millen, Sally Clarke, and Joe Perry invented the award upon their ascendency to their lofty






posts in 1977. For authority they cited the Natural Order of Things, which of course grants all manner of unlikely powers to managing editors. The Golden Trowel was bestowed with great verve by its creators.

1 9 8 3 KAREN BOXX (phone interview) Operations Executive Editor, 1983 Associate with Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman, Seattle, Washington KIM PFLUEGER (phone interview) Executive Symposium Editor, 1983 Associate with Betts, Patterson & Mines, Seattle, Washington RICHARD 0. KUMMERT (interview) LAW REVIEW OLYMPICS

According to Professor Kummert, law review editors are usually extraordinarily serious people. If so, the 1983 class was a very unusual group. Kim Pflueger's phone call tipped us off to one of their more creative events, the "Law Review Olympics" of 1983. Under the leadership of Karen Boxx, the class organized a series of "olympic" events for law review members. These events included elevator relay races, library cart races, wallball into the mailboxes, a silver dollar roll down the hall, a penny drop down the stairwell, and a competition for the most obscene quote from Lexis. The lucky winner of these events won the grand prize, consisting of all the wine left over from the Jurisprudential lecture. One of the most interesting events was a competition for the most believable, yet untrue, story about Professor Kummert. This competition was inspired by a true incident involving Professor Kummert. On a sunny afternoon in late June, he decided to clean the windows in his fourth floor office. The exterior of the windows are very difficult to reach, so Professor Kummert had to climb out onto the ledge. While perched on the ledge, he struggled to scrub every inch of the window. As he washed the last little comer on the center pane he heard the latch click. You guessed it. He was locked out. After a few moments of panic, he began moving down the ledge






in search of an open window. Unfortunately, since it was 3:00 on a summer afternoon, many of the offices were empty. Eventually, he located an open window in a secretary's office and scrambled in. It gave her quite a start. [Editors' Note: Professor Kummert must have learned a lesson. His windows seem to be pretty dirty these days.} Karen Boxx successfully ransacked her files to locate the winning entries in this competition. Professor Kummert awarded the 1st Prize to Scott Anderson (Executive Managing Editor) for the following entry. His prize was an all-expense paid punk rock evening for two, including dinner(?) at Herfy' s, slam-dancing at Baby's, and the obligatory "Rocky Horror Picture Show" seats at the theatre of choice (theatre damage prepaid). Here is the winning story:

When Richard O.Kummert's son turned 13, ROK thought it was time to give the boy a sex education lecture. He asked him, "Son, do you understand how men and women make babies?" His son responded with a blank stare. After waiting about 20 seconds for an answer, ROK sighed and said, "Well, son, it is with people as it is with corporations. When you want to reproduce, you just go ahead and you merge." Then, looking suddenly worried, he told his son, "Whatever you do, though, do not merge with a woman under the age of16. That's illegal-it's called a statutory merger." Another entry was a favorite of the editors of this book, 路 so we added it to the collection. Author unknown.

The ''Author, Author (Put a tracer on this) Award." Professor Kummert was asked to be the speaker at his Kiwanis Club's monthly lunch meeting. His proposed topic: "Humor and the Lil.w." The room filled with people eager to hear stories of lawyers' toupees falling off during closing argument and other similar gut busters. Sensing the anticipation, Professor Kummert decided to bring out the big comic guns and prove that corporate types also know a good laugh when they see one. "There was this corporation ... and it wanted to buy the shares of this






potential raider, because he presented a danger to corporate policy. So, usually a court just allows payment of expenses, right? Well, what do you think the 5th Circuit did? Now remember, this is the 5th Circuit!!! THEY ALLOWED PAYMENT OF THE FULL MARKET VALUE FOR THE SHARES!!!" As Professor Kummert chuckled in amazement at this nugget of jurisprudential lore, the Kiwanians wolfed down their chicken salad, checked theirwatches, and got their coffee cups refilled. It was going to be a long lunch.


1 g



JACQUELYN BEATTY (letter) Executive Articles Editor, 1987 Judicial Clerk for the Honorable James S. Holden, North Bennington, Vermont


How the Review ever got published when all one had was a typewriter (let alone pen and ink), is beyond my modem imagination. My writing year was the year of the Wang computers, which we were told by the third years (before we knew any better) would be a panacea of speed and efficiency. Oh, the gremlins were mentioned. But we were assured that, for the most part, they'd been banished. Well, formostofthe2L's my 2Lyear, they were. But not for this poor slob. The first time hours of work disappeared on me was startling-but it felt like some sort of initiation. A sign that I had arrived, was one of the warriors. I didn't break down and cry, rather I worked even later that night with renewed vigor. By the dawn's early light, I felt I had met the enemy and it was mine. Even the second time hours of work vanished I didn't become hysterical. But, by the third instance, it wasn't even a bad joke and for a moment there, I considered hurling the sucker out of one of those skinny windows. All in all, my Piece, or parts of it anyway, were eaten, consumed, digested, vaporized-you name it-no less than seven times. LATE HOURS

With all the talk about how bad the sun is for a person's






skin, I suppose it wasn't so bad after all, spending all those sunny days in that little pale and peeling, windowless room now horne only to Lexis and Westlaw, trying to meet deadlines. As for the countless late nights? It was great driving down Lake City Way at three a.m. No one was out. Even the fast food hot rod cruisers were gone. Usually there was a mist. Even the car sales lots looked peaceful, Loud music kept me awake-but the mornings were always a shock . when I'd start the car and Charlie and Ty would boom in at a hundred decibels. WAS IT WORTH IT?

Of course, it was worth it. It was even more than worth it.




Acceptance letter to George McCush.

~oo llo~

of F..lltOt'8 of thb V.W.1ngtoo lulf Review

111 vleaa&4 t.!.> 1Li'ol':ll JOn of t~


oti.mttion io the


'be ertaoU w 1fwlodll.ttely. lilt atoonel;y

tru~t; ~~~t twJ. inti'II" to t,l;o)

;;ou viU be •'blo to



~t.,. yw~

ot UU.a Lill'l l'>$Y1ew..


Cop:; to /Gerald noGsrmo

lol t-"'rvtlle Hateh · r~h~s ~raen, Jr. j.A"foOI'gG Alml

•<tw.rioe Kinzel lirudy E,. r.:vonson


v--:: . .





1952 Acceptance

letter to Myron

J. Carlson.



August 1, 1952

Mr. Myron J. carlson

1806 Rockefeller Everett, Washington Dear Mr. Carlson: The Edi tcrial Boa.r<l of th& Law Review ha" be~ Womed tha.t yo1.1r grades i.n your fi.rst year. of law achool have placed you !..n tho llj)per br.acl<ots of your cla:ss scholastically. This is. to in.fom you of the polic::J. of the L«v Review to extend to fi.rst-year students of proven scholastic ability \he opportunity to apply for meMbership on the nomilleo board of the public:aUoi>, and to let you know a litt~e about the Law Review before you apply for consideration a3 a pros-

pective nominee. The nooUr.e" boaro lllentioned will be your first. acqu.ain t.anee vi th Law Raview vork i ! your application is accepted. It meets for at least one quarter and is a vehicle for the indoctrination of prospective edik>rhl board mubers into all aspects of La" R..viev activity. Work on the board is a kind of apprenticuhip. Weekly meeting9 will b~ devoted both U> instruction and practice in the same ld.nd of work ..t.ich is done ye;u in and year out by our own editorial board and the oMtoria.l boards of Lav ReYiews aU over the country, To move from the 11011\inee board t.o the edi toria.l board and take a place the masthead, the nominee mU3t write a:o article auitablo for publication and be accepted by the board. There will be a reasonable deadline set for the oomple tion of the requi:r=enu. :1.~

lou have probably learned something about Law Reviews in g~neral, from reading or .from citations in class. This letter can do little more than scratch the surface of what 1• involved in putting out a Reviev, the objective of our publication, and the val.uo of the work inside and out.!ide the Lav School. Only living \lith the thing as a nominee and as a member of Ule editorial board c.on give one a grasp of the entire picture.

Tho La.v Review is the joint product of the liashington Law Scl:lool and the State Bar A3soci.Ation, It is tile bar's trade journal; its purpose is to servo the leRal profession in thl.s state -- to provide a kind of conUnulne education for lawyers and jurists, through the a.stal.ysis, exposition, and criticism of current law, and especially Washington la.v.


This objective is an ambitiou.s one. It is our job t.o spot and con!'used CX>rners of the lav. as they crop up and to correct and clarity. tn cur notes and co111111ents >te point out errors of the courts, we hrincr out changes taade in setUed law, we lawyers in unsettled fields, we po;l.nt, up the need for le~slation, and we call attention to dignifieant literature when it is written. The task necessarily involves exhaustive examination of recent l•m t.o deteiT.line 1.1her• tile need for the hand of the t...·J Review exists. In weekly lllcetings of the editorial board, every decision handed down by the Washington Supremo Court





1952 Acceptance

letter to Myron

J. Carlsan (cont.).

Mr. Myron J. Carlson


get• JUieroscopic ecruti.ny by the board for noteworthy points. Tha cases or topics ~elected by the board for coverage are filed for ~rrLting. One or another of the m8lllbers of the Law Revi.ev ~·• up the case or topic as his Vl"iting project. '!be law, as you have probably lea.rned, -is Often difficu1 t to understand) wri i t is even more difficult. Ani when·,.. are correcting courts and cuiding Lawyers, there is litUe rooi!l for error. The job involves meticulous research; it ea.Us for precise writing; it demands extensive revision. The machinery for editorial revision meshes at the time research is begun and ends with the sending of the final copy to t)le printer.

A eopy of the LAw Review goos ~ every lawyer and.o•ery judge in tho state. It i• resd b;y the,.. lt is cit.ed by lawyera and by· the courts. .An outof-stat& mailing list ~nclude3· law schools all over the c~try. A recent article elicited very favorable comment in a letter to the Re~ew by Dr. Warren Se"vey, one of the most eminent men in tha field of torts. l.n article questioning the power of Washington courts to sward alimony aroused a furore among lawyers and judges and evoked co-.ent i.n the pre"s and radio. our editorial work, '"' solicit articles fram legal lir,hts throughout the country and ftommembers of our own bar and the faculty of ou.r law school. The faculty, in particular, maintains a .;:lose tie with the I.:aw Review, largely in a counseling capacity in.their respeotive field• of law. Their doors are always open to. Law Review members with research and writing problems. Ou.r faeult.y advisor, Kr. Greeo, attends meetin[?S and gives assistance in all phases of I.:aw Review activity, Through all of the foregoinc process, the student is necessarily gainint experience in legal research and Yritine --·experience that is ~a~hered either not at al.l, or to a le!!.se.r ext.ent, in the: pressure of tho clB.ssr-oo!'!t.. He obtains: an exten3ive knowledgo of Washington l;w. To those who have fulfilled t.he requirements, a cert.ifica t& is avarded by the l.:aw Review upon fradua Uon, And, t..o be purely mercenary, it is a fact that ~:~any lA"Yers and la.·• !inns are partial to Law Review men as em?loyees. Thi~ ia a thUI!Ihnail sketch of uhat ""' are doil:lg hero and what for, It is work; it b work in the field of law. But it is not c.lassroom work; !roo this it ig a genuine relief. That it detracts fran classr00111 work ls not horne out by the boosted grade point3 of nearly evary m~.ber of .tba present editorial board,

Please cottta.ct us by mail as to your -intention in tlUsmatter, ;>roferably

ty September 15. Upon your arrival back at school in the fall,. you will be informed whether or not you have been accepted, and, if so, invited to the first meeting of the nominee hoard.

Congratulations on your fine first-year recon:l. Sin~erely, .,-



Roy J. Moceri E.:ii.lor RJM:elh






路Subscription request.






The Law Review's

reply to the request.

Ifni. I.1la Saux 1lu 31 'f&ho1Ah 1


Ns w:Ul 4\cltnavfledge your l•tter ot a rHent date eta~

that you with to subacdbe to t.he liaahtne :the nat iaeoo of the



will be

HU!Iiber l of Voll.IP ;av and 'ld.ll not be out until. SCI!Ietisa in ·

Karch m:toh will gin you aapla time to send me the $:)..20 for 70\ll" •ubatn"ipt1on~

Veq tn13' ;,oun, 1WIIIDfaroJl UW IE'flll,ll'







(a) memo from

Flapdoodle about

librarian; (b)

reserved library

defaced sign

carrels for Review members:

"reserving" carrels; (c) note

attached to defaced sign in Law Review files.


(a) The Faculty Editor·of the Washingto~ Law Review requested special stack privileges for his Editors some time ago, ie order to enhance their feelteg of prestige. I declined to grant these privileges.


then appealed from the trial court to the appellate court, and I was reversed, and am not about to get into a snit about it. As a result, six stack carrels bllve· been set aside on 2-lt tor the use of the Wa$h1n§!on Law Review people. Temporary signs now are on them, but F:l'anees wil.l make more pe.naan.ent ones soon.

There may be SOllie repercussions from di~laced, underprivileeed non-Law Review students, and I.tbought you ouaht to know in advanclil that this is ·an adm1n1strat1ve decision tnm an admin1su·at ion higher. than the Law Libraey .adlllinistration. If you do discuss this wltb any complainers, i t would not be politic: to say that I did not approve of it, only that it was not my decision. l also think you should not assume (out loud) that these carrels arlil DM>ded for anything more than the extra work which Law Review students must do.


April 5, 1965

Annotation tram 2M



l ~--








H til- AV!teAt4 •





Saga of the

down the carrels;

carrels (contJ:

(e) another note

(d) rauting slip

from the files.


Review turned

(d) ROUTING Viola Cecil Eleanore Frances



do you think we should

file thiJ in the law rev. histoey mgg




Washington Law Review History, 1919 - 1988