Brooklyn Law School - Chancellor Yearbook (Brooklyn, NY)

Page 131 text:

933 to be the ulti- g Purposes and e staff has en- JPP0ItuI1ityf for . say that there SS fo Cope with tain perfection, Clants. But the future existence . be or will be' Sonal profit and ce the cloak of should look to ustinian, it must I Law School be iff. plaintiff has led Iclant perpetually leir Alma Mater All concur. Sl Cf1o11c.e!!O! pkft, I BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW PUBLISHED BY THE STUDENTS OF THE BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL TWICE DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR SUBSCRIPTION PRICE 31.25 PER ANNUM . . 70 CENTS PER NUMBER EDITORIAL STAFF MILTON E. CANTER, Edizof ALUMNI BOARD JACOB ARONSON WILLIAM B. CARSWELL AARON S. CUTLER JOHN J. BENNETT, JR. JOHN J. CURTIN GEORGE V. MCLAUGHLIN STUDENT BOARD JEROME PRINCE, Student Editor-in-Chief , JOHN J. SCOTT, N ozey Edizm- JOHN E. STONE, Decifiom Edifor l FERDINAND VAN S. PARR, JR., Book Review Edizw- HELEN HENIS, Seffemfy IRWIN ALPER DOUGLAS M. AMANN PETER F. BLASI BERNARD B. BRANDT SAMUEL G. BUCHALTER CARYL E. COHEN JOSEPH H. COHEN JAMES M. COKER ALEXANDER E. CYMROT JOHN H. EASTERDAY, JR. HERMAN EDELSBERG MAX FEFFERMAN MILTON G. GERSHENSON ROBERT GRUSKIN NATHAN JACOBSON SAMUEL JOSEPH MELETIOS KAVAKOS WILLIAM L. MOSES ABRAHAM M. RIEDER BERTRAM L. ROSENBERG RALPH J. STARK Page On e H undred Twenly-one

Page 130 text:

'MR O 4: gig' J Qfd.. Z' The most gratifying accomplishment of the publication may be said to be the ulti- mate acquisition of a clearer insight and understanding into the underlying purposes and h ff h h t ntialities for benehcent influence that a publication such as t e sta as en- t e po e d cl to create has in the world of law. There has been ample opportunityf fgf eavore ex erimentation and investigation of the ground, so that we may safely say that there P has been evolved a sufficient amount of basic experience and preparedness to cope with the problems of the future. The plaintiff necessarily concedes that it still has far to go to attain perfection, d also concedes the presence of good faith on the part of the defendants. But the an laintiff comes into this court with clean hands, and asserts that its future existence P requires the support and cooperation of defendants. No injustice can be or will be' done by receiving our plea. We are not engaged in this venture for personal profit and emolument, but are rather so charged with public interest as to invoke the cloak of judicial protection. If we are correct in our contention that the defendants can and should look to THE JUSTINIAN, just as their predecessors of antiquity looked to their justinian, it must follow inevitably that the defendant students and graduates of Brooklyn Law School be perpetually commanded to lend renewed and added support to the plaintiff. Public Opinion, J., per cnmzm,-The ably argued contention of plaintiff has led this court unanimously to favor their plea. It is hereby ordered that defendant perpetually desist from neglecting plaintiff, and that they keep in touch with their Alma Mater through its columns. Q All concur. Page One Hundred Twenty ,.. BR PUBLI Smascm Jicoa AROXSOX JOHN FERDINAND jf-,Nh .l- Sco-I7 N IRWIN ALPER PETER F, BLLSI--fi: BERNARD Smurr GBSPLHNI CAR ' 'CHA JOSHEQOHEN EPH COHEX X

Page 132 text:

4: Q ff- ,Q g S jim, 7933 Q 7,1-1.1-g ll l ? 141 , 'Sk WHT? EQ I f--N N XRS I 4 v LAW REVIEW BY the time this appears in print the third issue of the Brooklyn Law Review will have been distributed. It will bring the second year of the Review to a close. The rise to recognition of the Review can only be characterized as meteoric. It has taken its place with the celebrated conservative law reviews, and has created a new position for itself by reason of the readability and lucidity of its features. Comments by leaders in every branch of the law amply bear out this claim. The New York Law journal, the official newspaper of the First and Second Departments, reprinted extensively from the first issue soon after its inaugural appearance, and since then has regularly included items from the Review in its editorial column. Starting without organization or precedent to guide it, an exclusively under- graduate group prepared and issued the Brooklyn Law Review. Of necessity, the first board was arbitrarily chosen, but since then, membership has been obtained only by choice from scholarship listings made by a faculty committee on publications. In large measure, the painstaking and thorough preparation of material by the Student Board, under the direction of the editors, has accounted for the success of the Review, but this has been augmented by the excellence of the leading articles contributed by leaders of the New York bar. judging from its reception during its brief existence, the Brooklyn Law Review is destined to create an entirely new standard for law reviews and will take its place as a leader in its field. b Page One Hl!i2d7'6d Twenty-Iwo The C Model Hades The leg What ti Legal 61 The roar NKC OOO THE CLA GEN TLEMEI PROPAGAN 0 UR HAND