The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-13
The CODE AMENDMENT BILL,
Unconstitutionality Of the Pro.
posed Amendments.
The Governor Waited Upon BY Delegation
from the New York Bar Association.
Arguments Against the Bill by Ex-Attdr
ney General Evasts
ALBANY, May II ln7l.

MessrA W. u Evarts, Henry E. Davies, James
Emot, Joshua M. Van Colt, E. 8. Van WinKle, Ed
ward Mitchell and Henry NlchoI, the delegation
from the New York Bar Association, appeared be.
fore Governor Holman this afternoon 10 present
reasons why the bill which contains certain pro-
posed amendments to the code should not become
law. Mr.. Evarts in reviewing the proposed amend
ments, took the strong ground that Ger.
tain sections were unconstitutional. Any act
which proposes to take from the supreme
Court certain causes and remand them
TO other courts Ia contrary to the fundamental law.
He had no complaint from attorney or saitoR, con-
cernng rue action Of the superior Court or Court OF
Common Pleas. twas
AN OUTRAGE uPoN STOCKHOLDERS,
clients and lawyers TO compel certain suits or 9yeas
magnitude In New York city to be narrowed down
TO certain courts. proposed 10 the bill With ref
erence to certain sections OF the bin, which proposes
to increase the SherTs fees he said thatthe debtors
creditors ana lawyers parties most deeply inter-
ested. had not asked for any change in New York.
The fees very lucrative, ana this bill proposes
To largely increase them. Section = provides for
transfer OF attorneys In certain such lawyers
rs the Sheriff may select. This was an outrage
which the professor would not tolerate. or section
eleven, relative to The appointment OF referees, be
says the present constitution provides that Judge
or judicial officer in New York, Brooklyn or Buffalo
shall act as ierefee in any case in their
own court 1t was suggested to provide
that this provision should apply 10 the whole
State. But was agreed that in the country where
country judges, FOR instance had much spare time
and small pay, that they might act az referees;
therefore, the provision was not made general
But he had shown that The section was nnconstItu-
tiona, and no bin that was not Constitutional
Should be signed by the Governor Another section
gave an extended patronage to Courts Ia the way
OF receiverships. IL was injurious to lirgants and
was great exposure OF property. 1t was very
unwise provision, and the delay OF a year could
WORK no harm in the proposed change.
Section nineteen affected the question OF appeal
and the profession, with great unan,nity, OPP
posed Its adoption. Section Il was very objcc-
tonabe; IL related TO the discovery OF evidence The
great effort was in limiting the order for the pro-
duction Of books and papers: y was intended to
Cur oFF INQUIRY iNro CORRUPTION
and to prevent the pryng into tho secrets Of corpo-
ratons 1t might nc thought that this was a good
thing for corporations, but III the long litigation
sure to follow, would inlure where it pro-
fessed TO benefit. Another section affected
the right Of attorneys the preliminary
examination. Here was distinct bestoya upon
the Judge Of certain authority which was obJection-
able to witnesses AMI to the cause oil justice. Sec
ton "a is one that upon us like thunderbot
the present practice limited contempt to certain
disorders IN the court and disobedience of orders.
This statue proposes 10 sweep away at once all that
has been built up by careful enactmentS In this
country or England, to enable the courts to exercise
extraordinary powers In this regard. THIS comes
body Is responsible for this extraordinary confer.
sponsibiity is cQhcerned, 1t 10
TIe DEMOCRATIC PARTY;
and yet that party has always set IT'S face against
the extraordinary powers OF the courts lie referred
TO the Impeachment OF Judge Peek OF Missouri, for
the imprisonment OF lawyer Tor contempt. This
Judge was tried and every democratic United States
ment led TO the Enactment 81 a law limiting more
stI1cry the power or the courts over the questioned
contenlpk And since that time voice ever has
been raised in favor Of change; aud now 1t Is
10 the people OF this State, that they
are to be sube ted TO the discipline or the bench.
lie read the section and sald:Ihis puts US back to
the sixteenth century for presidents o power 1t
without responsibility. 1t meritedithe adherence
and contempt OF a great, free aud instructed
munny. likc that OF the state or New YORK. Had
the question been presented In the lace OF the bar
would have voted for such a bill. Hc concluded by
saying that he and hts associates had instructed
by the Bar Association Of New York, which num-
bered about five hundred members 10 oppose this
bill and to protest against It's becoming law.
THE GOVERNOR FAILS TO GIVE AN OPINION.
When Mr.. Evafts had concluded Judge EmOt in
an INFORMAL way, made some objections tO the BILL
The Governor said that this bill reached hun after
the adjournment OF the Legislature Had II come
into his hands before that time he should nave sub
United 1T TO the Attorney General. Since the adjourn
ment. from circumstances well known TO those pre-
sent, ne mad not had time to give IL personal eyam
nation. He was glad to hear the discussion TO
which he had listened. The delegation then retired.