New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-08-05

pera,ion OF this and other definitions therein contained
,y restricting their 20 be consistent with the
context OF with the nature OF the provision In which the
erms or phrases are found hut this modification was
lropped in the revision submitted TO Congress and
was not reinserted. .r .... ......... .....
NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING LAW.
At the next session Jan. very important modi'
hcaon OF existing law was adopted by direct vote II
related the organization OF the several Departments
and the change consisted in leaving out OF the code the
several provisions OF existing statutes limiting the
number OF clerks OF the first second third and fourth
class and retaining permanent only the provisions
for chief clerks dsbursng clerks and Others ON whom
the law deyolyed special duties effect of the change
being that only such clerks OF minor grades can be APP
pointed or employed as may DO appropriated for Dy
Congress from year to year.
At the session Of Feb 49, the phrase fruits. plants
&c as printed in the official edition OF the existing stat
ues was after long discu sion and upon direct vote
changed to "fruit-piants." &c.
At the session of Feb a. several sections OF the code
AS reported relating drawbacks were stricken out on
the ground that the corresponding provisions OF .he
original statutes had been virtually repeated Dy Tue
adoption of the warehouse system
AT every session. changes made either by STRIKING
out sections N whole IN part substituting or trans
posing sections changing phrase00gy the atera'onS
thus made amounting in the aggregate 10 se'er nun
dreds and indicating the difficulties which were en-
countered Inv the revisers the Committees, and the
House their Joint and several efforts 10 produce per
feet code. These alterations purpored generally ana
evidently were intended TO be only Tor the purpose Oh
making the code conform TO the law as IL existed on 'ne
Ist day OF December, 1873 At the same time equally
evident that not only the prominent instances
above alluded to but in many others which cannot now
be specified the action OF the House was equivalent TO
new legislation.
THE NEW CODE BEFORE THE SENATE.
on the 4th Of April the code, passed by the House
was TO the Senate and on the 18TH referred
10 the Committee the Revision OF the Laws, winch
Committee reported 1t back the 25h of May on the
goth was Informally considered, and on the 27th after
a brief discussion and without amendment passed the
Senate.
When the bill was reported by Mr. COnkling. Chair
man OF Senate Committee Revision he stated by
way OF illustration in answer to question from Mr.
Morton that where for instance OF sections re-
lated TO particular subject the true intent and meaning
Of that page had been condensed into words as few as
could be employed for the purpose adding that, al
though phraseoogy of has been changed the aim
throughout has been TO preserve absolute identity OF
meaning, change the law in any particular now
ever minute" Ii further appeared IN the course oil ms
remarks that the Committee. well as that OF
the House. had participated IN the work OF review ana
consultations and that both Committees had acted sew
orally and separately as well as Jointly III the perform
ance of their duties in the premises.
The reading OF the bill in erenSO was dispensed WITH,
and the only discussion the Senate. between its nitro
ducon and its final passage. upon the concluding
chapter making provisions for repeal. being the only
portion that read. This discussion which did not
reach proportions OF debate served only 10 show
that while the Senate felt bound under the circum-
stances to accept the results OF the abors OF the re-
visers it did so with great reluctance and with the full
conviction that supplementary or amendatory legisla-
ton would be found requisite. 1t also appears very
clearly that the Senate body accepted and adopted
the code upon the theory that aside from unavoidable
errors or imperfecoTs, it reproduction OF the
existing statutes in condensed form, changed IN
phraseology but not IN substance effect Thus the
Senate assisted. uncOnsciOuSy II would SEEM IN confirm
ing the action OF the House, although that action was
in numerous instances radically different from the
theory so distinctly and unequivOcaly set forth.
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION OF INTENT
In view of facts, spread the record the
question intent with reference TO the operation and
Get of the code, the construction of portion
or section thereof in of doubtassumes very df-
fcrent aspect from that which IT would have borne had
the theory referred 10 been strictly followed. In the
latter case there would have been substantial change
Of existing law. and ambiguity or uncertainty re-
sung altered phraseolog In the process of con
densation might have been explained or determined by
simple reference the prior statute But although
the intent is obvious wherever the prior law is retained
intact or without material change the argument is just
as strong where such change is made Congress in
tended TO and did enact legislation This cOnclE-
sion seems irresistible for otherwise must assume
that the House stultihed itself by adopting radical
changes in sting law without intending TO do so. But
upon the assumption that in making such changes 1t
departed from the theory on which 1t had
act, the inconsistency disappears IL Is
more difficult however. TO understand the action OF the
Senate which can be explained only upon the supposi
ton that t. glrded the code. it came from the
House. simply legislative Interpretation OF existing
law. Taking TOT granted fact which there was no time
10 verify b. actual examination c0ntented
itself win a critical examination Of the repeating
clauses leaving TO time and another session the develop
,regt and ur az lie defects which il a-tnctivoy fore
saw DC found N the body Of the code Uhtil tnat
done must ascertain the statute law IN any gwen
gard to the question Of intent except far as that can
be gathered the code stN In DONG tll- resort
must be hsd TO the seven repeating the only
embodiment Of the legislative mind
that question. Or these the first two present seyea
stiHct propositions which show. with Sufficient clear
ness. intent OF Congress to preserve and recnact IN
consolidated form, all statutes ana statutory prove
Ous Of general and permanent nature ia IoFee On ihe
70 1sec, parts Of and all statutory pro
whel had eIIifel By limitation or teen 'uorst OF repealed
by passed that which had IN the opinion Of Con-
gress, become obsolete.
10 leave intact ali acts and provisions or private
local OF temporary character ia force on that date
For these purposes they repealed ali ana every dct or
acts Oi general anu permanent cnddctt,
retnacted In whole In part in the revision and de
such acts omitted from the revision were already
superseded or repealed or were not general and per.
saving clause IN the form Of proviso. 10 the effect
that the selection OF general and permanent pro-
vision from an act making appropriations containing
Otr provisions OF private, local or temporary char
dcter should not IN any way Affect such appropriation
or such priva'e, local or Temporary provision. To
this they added 10y way OF abundant caution. the fur
tbtr reservation that where part Oi All act pissed
pro. 10 said date embraced in the revision sucn act
remains unaffected thereby.
The next three relate to tho preservation of
nights and remedies; the sixth iOrbIds the
iille under which parcuiar section Is placed
the purpose of nerrnC legislative mteDt, aud the last
makes the revision subject TO the operation Of aug
passed since the LIST day OF December, 1878.
TIE REVISION NOT RETROSPECTIVE.
The impression 10 have Obtained some quar-
tiers that the revision is retrospective, taking eicc,
from tho LIST OF December, ls73an Impression arising