Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-02-14

!
Their, DC. Ii is believed, that if the com
mitiee had examined the book with little
more attention, they would never have
dreamt of Ibis objection.
may here be permitted TO make one
general remark respecting the defects Of
the arrangement. 1t is obvious that the
re,isors attempted tn arrange the several
clauses OF tie law properly. II could mol
be expected that they could si.ii the taste
OF every gentleman. But il was easy TO
remedy any evil resulting from defec-
! tive arrangement, by providing for CO.
pious index, which could have been made
with great facility by any person versed i'm
our statute laws.
The second class of defects is stated to
be those of OMISSION" and Two insian-
ces are given of this defect. The first is.
that the reyisors omitted To compile into
one acf The several acts formerly made 10
prevent the circulation OF private bank
notes, and the act lately passed 10 prevent
the circulation of the notes of unchartrr-
ca banks. Ii will be seenon very slight
examination, that this objection of the
committee oughtio have but little weight.
The bill reported by the revsors in D. 237
does in fact compile nto one act the old
law and the law of 1904, made in amend
ment thereof. Ii will be rrcollecfed that
the object OF these two acts WAS To intiict
apenalty on any individual WHO shall offer
IN payment any private bank bill or noie
payable 10 bearer, or any note or hill,
whether payable TO bearer or order, If is
sued by an unchartered company. These
two acts operated on the person who ten
dered such notes or bills. But the object
of the act ct 1915, was to put down the
unchartered banks themselves. The OBJ
jcct, therefore, being different, il seems
that The revisors tlo't, thai whilst The two
former laws ought TO be reduced 10 one,
the last ought to stand singly, and be in
corporated III the code by iiself.--The
second defect of omission whicliis point
ed Out, is the failure TO compile, or note
for publication the land laws. ,alt will be
found tlrat the land laws, so far as they
apply to present or future cases, are COM
piled, and with respect TO past cases, il
will be recollected that the revisors, in
their letter 10 the Assembly, recommend
ed publication of the statutes al large,
and The event of the Legislature declin-
ing TO make that publication, they tender
ed their services in making further Sc
lection of acts aud parts of acts, which
ought 10 bemade a part of the code. IL
they had been consulted, they would pro-
badly have satisfied the committee, that
this very subject of the land laws was
considered by them, and that they would
have selected those very laws as part of
the code, If the Legislature did not wish
10 carry ther recommendation OF pub
fishing the statutes al large into effect.
The last series of defects pointed out
by the committee, are those or amend
ment, and tits presumed that these are
considered by the committee as the most
"A.
10 this objection, is, that the Tevisors were
not empowered by law TO propose new
code. They were authorized TO compile
and condense The laws now in existence,
and TO add notes OF explanation and re-
ference. Such was the construction
which The Legislature Of 1880 gave 10
similar law. They were even apprehen-
sive that they exceeded their powers when
they proposed few amendments which
were plain and palpalile, and which every
person seemed TO admit ought 10 be made.
Bntwliat are these defects of amendment?
The first is, III not reforming the language
of the revised bills. Why should this
have been lonc2 Whena statute contains
certain words which have been read and
known for twenty, thirty or forty years,
and have received fixed and determiBate
construction III the courts of justice,
would ii not he preposterous TO change
those words for others which though bet
ter in themselves, and more consonant
with the rules of grammar, yet would be
new to the people, and might require a
new Interpretation from the courts, sub
jecting item thereby to the delays and
expences of continued litigation The
| next defect of amendment is in not max
| ing the various provisions of laws passed
| at different times consistent with each o.
| Their. In what instance has this happen
| ed Can the committee peint out half d
| dozen instances If they can, they must
| have keener optics thantle writer of these
| remarks.
But the last and greatest defect is, that
| the revisors have not suggested such "a
nendmeRts as are necessary TO remedy
the defects of the present system of laws,
without changing the essential principles
| thereof" The committee are not salts
! fed with the wisdom Of forty legislatures.
they are not satisfied withthe laws as they
| at present exist, they must have the whole
amended from Alpha TO Omega. But is
| this wise resolution Is it not danger
| Gus! Whether is j, better to pass whole
code in review, and propose amendments
| throughout, or to give us the code as it al
| present exists, and leave to future Legisla-
lures the task of remedying defects, as
| they arise, or as experience NAV point
them out? The first plan is attended with
| great difficulty, expence, DELAY and con-
trOversy; the latter is simple and easy. II
the first plan had been adopted by the re-
| vlsors. they must have consulted every
intelligent lawyer and magistrate in fhe
commonwealth, aud requested each TO
propose lis alterations and amendments.
and from the mass ofconficting opinions
| they must have selected such as appeared
10 the majority Of the board to be the