Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-09-06
For the Journal.
REVISION OF THE STA TUTES.

| 4
Since the action of the Governor and Coun-
Gil in removing me from my place as one OF
the commissioners to revise the statutes has
been made public, it seems necessary that l
should state the facts in the case, which are
briefly as follows: When the commissioners
first met in May 1869, they assigned all the
subsequent statutes to their appropriate chap
tiers in the old Revised Statutes, and then d.
vded the work of revision into three parts,
one for each commissioner, and voted and
agreed that each should prepare and finish his
part in regular order in blank books which
were provided by our direction for that pur-
pose, and when we had done this, we were to
have joint session for the examination and
final adjustment of the whole work ready to
report to the Legislature. We then separat-
ed to perform this agreement. In the latte
| part of November we met again in Joint ses-
| sion for the above purpose. Mr.. Flint and
myself had prepared our parts in the blank
books as we had agreed, with care; all the
subsequent acts were incorporated into the
body of the work in their natural order, as
we thought, and sectioned throughout. But
the other commissioner had totally disregard
ed our agreement, and instead of having his
work in regular order and incorporated in one
uniform body in the blank book provided, he
had taken an old volume of the Revised Stat
ntes, and in pencil, in pen and in slips of
print, he had spread the subsequent acts
| around tho ton bottom and sides of the
pages, many of them without sectioning and
without fixing the language as he intended to
have it. For want of time before the session
of the Legislature, we were obliged to give it
such examination we could, and all that we
could do, was to be sure that all the suisse
quent acts had been thus sprinkled around the
pages of the old volume. We could not see
the order and arrangement of the sections
nor how they would be numbered, nor could
we pass any Judgment on the language, for
in many instances he had not fixed it as he in
tended to have it. Our joint session closed
shortly before the session of the Legislature,
and we were required to report on the 10th
day This portion of the work was put in
great haste of course into the blank books
and brought to the Legislature the day before
we reported, and so we had no opportunity to
examine it then; the whole Revision was re-
fered to committee of the Legislature. This
committee was divided into three parts and one
one assigned to each commissioner this work.
But all that these subcommittee could do,
was to ascertain that the new work embodied
.xx - ott 70 fln
order and arrangement of the sections, or the
mode of sectioning or changing the language
In this way the whole work was adopted and
passed by the Legislature, but it never was
engrossed only by fiction. After the Legis
lature adjourned, it was found on examining
the first volume of this part of the work, that
the arrangement of the sections in many
chapters was defective, that subsequent acts
had been tackled on to the end of sections in
the old revision when the old and the new
were each sufficient for section of itself,
and when the subsequent matter was not
kindred, to save the labor of rescectioning the
chapter; that in one or more instances a SUBJ
sequent act was incorporated into the wrong
subdivision so that it would certainly mislead,
and in most cases the subsequent acts were
crowded in without any change and with all
their complicated and accumulated verbiage,
when by reconstruction they could have
been reduced from one-fifth to one-third and
made much palmer. In this way, the work
was an imperfect compilation, instead of
careful rerision, as the other parts were. The
question then arose, what shall be done? Shall
this compilation with its accumulation of use
less words, be printed as it is, to stand
for twelve or fifteen years as a perpetual
impeachment of all the commissioners,
who would be held Jointly responsible by
the public, or shall it be reconstructed and
made to conform to the rest of the work, and
thus printed, and then apply to the neat Leg
islature to ratify and adopt 1t as printed,
which could he done in an act of three lines,
and for which there would be ample time as
the revision does not take effect till the first
day of February, nearly month after the
meeting of the Legislature? | believed then
and do now that the original Resolve and the
public interests required that the work should
page or chapter had been omitted, or an act
that had been actually repealed had been re-
tanned by mistake, must the work be printed
without correcting these mistakes? Acting
on this conviction, what actually did was to
bring the sections into their natural and suit
able order, re-section the chapters where they
needed it, and eliminate the mass of useless
words, and make the whole more orderly,
compact and plain, whtle preserving tdenti-
caHy the same meaning an erery particular.
Mo complaint has been made or can be made
that the meaning was changed in the slightest
particular. Who, then, is harmed? The
complaint is, in substance, that ''unwar-
rantably" made this part of the work what it
ought to be and to conform to the rest By
this, am willing to be judged.
do not complain that the Governor and
Council have removed me for this cause,
though it is remarkable it should have been
DELAYED some three months after they had full
kpowlado.. of all the facts and until inst be-