The republic., 1851-01-04
Legal Nteforni. .


the New York Code OF Procedure, and of the
success with which it has thus far been attend
ed in It's practical operation. We alluded
also 10 the attention which it has recently
attracted in England, and to the commenda-
tions bestowed upon il by of the lead
ing London journals. Among these we might
also have mentioned the Law RerieW, high
legal authority which has examined and com
mended the code i'll an able and elaborate arti-
Gle. Opinions, not only among the body OF the
people, but among the most eminent members of
the bar, seem to be rapidly tending towards the
adoption of similar reform in England; and the
inherent evils and defects of the system of re-
medal law, which, with all its delays, and
technicalities, and absurdiies, has 50 long been
held in reverence, are thus beginning TO be seen
and felt In the country where 1t had It's origin.
With these evils and defects the citizens of
the District of Columbia have long had ample
opportunities of becoming acquainted. They
have enjoyed ito the top of their bent" all the
beauties OF this ancient system. Whilst II has
been pruned and trimmed and propped up from
time to time on its native soil, it has been suf-
fered to remain here pretty much in the same
condition as when IT was first transplanted.
We believe that II is rotten at the core; and
that there must be cutting up by the roots Of
the whole system. No mere looping of of de-
cayed limbs, engrafting Of vigorous shoots
upon sapless branches, no wars against the cat
erpilars that eat up It's verdure, or the foxes
that burrow in its holows-the axe must be
put to the trunk Of the tree.
The people are now fully awake to the evil Of
the present state of things, and there Isl prospect
that something will be done towards provdnga
remedy. We published some dayssnce memo
rial Of the members of the bar of this city on the
subject of Judiciary reform, in which they say
that g our present system is antiquated, cum
bersome, and dilatory that it is the most eN-
pensive system in the United States, and is,
besides, radically defective in its theory" and
pray for the passage OF the bill to re-organze
the courts of the District of Columbia which is
now before the Judiciary Committee of the
| Senate.
We have already published the bill at length,
and do not propose now TO go into any eXamina
tion of its details. We have no doubt that it
will be an improvement of the existing system
because the existing system could not well be
made worse. Yet we doubt very much whe-
| ther any mere reorganization of the courts will
effectua'y remedy the evils that are expert
enced or give the people what they desire.
A thorough reform, not only in the organiza-
ton of the courts, but in the practice, and
pleadings, and proceedings in the courts, is
what is required-the abolition of all useless
forms and technicalities-the substitution Of
concise and Ineligible language for proliXity
and nonsense--ihe doing away with the absurd
=" fictions of law" and the final dismissal of
JOHN Doe and RICHARD Roe from the service
of the public. Instead of establishing two sepa-
rate courts OF law and equity as this bill propo-
ses, we should be glad to see the two jursdic-
tons blended into a harmonious unit AS has
been successfully done in New York. The only
real difference between English law and En-
glish equity is difference of pleading, process,
and remedy. The great object of both has been
Gin theory to do substantial justice between
the itigating parties. The end aimed at
by both is the same The essence of both
is the same. a party seeks redress for a
wrong, or the enforcement of right. Let him
tell his story to the court, and ask the relief to
which he is entitled 1t is all nonsense to talk
of legal rights, and equitable rights, and of
common law declarations for one and bills in
chancery for another. Why should not the
same system of pleading answer for all cases,
and why should not one court be vested with
all the powers necessary for the discovery of
truth and the administration of justice
So also in regard TO the forms of action. Can
any one tell" asks Mr.. FIELD, the refonner
of the New York code, "what good comes of
keeping up the division of actions into cove
nant, debt, trespass, case, replevin, and the
like2 Is there in the nature of things a rea-
son for taking one form of action when note
happens to be sealed, and different form
when the seal is wanting2 The division of
actions arises only from the use Of strict tech
nical forms in declarations. While those
forms exist, and the cause of action is stated
not as ii really is, and as it will be told TO the
court and jury on the trial, but according to
old formulas which have come down to us
from remote ages, it may be convenient to
classify them, and to give each class its name;
: but there cannot be any good reason why the
story should not be told in the ordinary Ian
guage of life, in the only language intelg-
Bile to juries who are to decide the causes;
and if that were done the distinctions of ac-
tions would cease of course"
If the people of this District would petition
for such reforms as these and others that are
embodied in the New York code, their efforts
might result in some substantial benefit. As it
is, we hope that the Propriety of adopting them
will be duly considered when the bill for the
reorganization Of the courts shall come before
the Senate. One provision Of the bill, Of which
every one Will approve, provides for the APP
pointment of Commissioners TO prepare code
of laws for the government OF the District
Why should not similar commission be APP
pointed to simplify and abridge the practice and