The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1877-05-19
THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW.
Our Law makers should learn a lesson
| from the translators Of ming James's YER
sion of the Bible. They, with fine sense
Of the want they had 10 meet, rendered
the Scriptures into the simplest and PLAIN
est English that they could command
Their words, except a few that are obso-
lete, and the arrangement Of them are a.
easily understood by the unlesrned man A.
by the scholar. The thought IN the Eng
lsh Bible Is sometimes obscure, but the
language never is.
But, while all men may read and under
stand the religious laws to which they are
subject, few can ascertain through their
own reading the full meaning Of the civil
laws passed, (ostensibly) for their protec-
ton. Ignorance Of the Law is no defense
for a violation Of it ; and yet, 50 long as it
continues to be expressed with barbarOus
clrcumlocutIon and repetition, ignorance Of
ii must be general, ana tins, even though
there were much fewer changes and much
fewer conflicts than there are. Few, in
| deed, are the men whose natural fondness
/ for reading is SO strong that they can peruse
with pleasure, or even faint attention, q
sheep bound volume, printed ''solid, nil
ed with acts to do this and that, every
| {, urth one of them, about, being an ''act
to amend an act entitled, &C.; every para
graph beginning with whereas" or
therefore, A" and ''saids' and ''aforesaids"
as thick in the text as weeds in an untend-
ed garden. And, when mon have the in
tell.ctual yigor to read this sheep-bound
volume Of duilnesa, they cannot, unless
they know the legal rules Of construction
and have had some experience in applying
them. get at It's true intent. The most in
telligent people, when they wish TO know
the Law governing matter, have 4 EN-
ploy an interpreter and the Interpreters,
often, do not agree.
There is no good reason Why our statutes
ah.ADid ha frnm, literary npint OF view.
so aOcmlhabiy lll-made As they are. OuI
legislators are not as \ rule highly educa-
ted men, and have not much literary taste,
but they can most of them express them
selves in direct and comprehensive lan-
guage. They none Of them have any
trouble in conveying to their constituents
the high opinion they have Of their own
worthIness and they write and talk about
laws with decency and persplcuIty. Why,
then, when they come to write laws, which
are far more important than what is writ
ten about them, should they entirely
change their style, and affect the barbar-
isms that deface all the statute books :
Simply because they think they must con-
| form to a custom which arose centuries
ago from the peculiarities Of the age and
the ignorant selfshness of a profession.
The earliest written laws of England,
whence We derive most of our legal forms
were made at time when writing was not
a common accomplishment; and the few
people who could write, wrote, as many
people write now, in a stllted and precise
manner that is lost In conversation. The
early Euglish books, particularly law
books, are hard reading for moderns. The
words in them are mostly dictionary"
words, and the sentences abound in Latin
inversions. The statutes Of the times had
these peculiaritles in a greater degree than
other writings, because exactness and dis
tinctness were especially aimed at by the
authors Of them, and the besetting weak
ness OF unskIlful writer's, when they aim
to be exact and distinct, is that they be-
come verbose and circumlocutory.
Besides the general unskilliulness in
lks
! statutes we're enacted disposition on the
part Of the legal profession to make every
thing connected with the law work to their
own advantage. This may Re almost in
credible to those who know the profession
only a. 1t exists now. There was however
this desire, and it created those marvels of
tautology and involution, legal docu-
ments." For drafting papers the early
lawyers charged by the word, and they of
course inserted IN a paper all the words
they could command. Moreover, they re-
aiized their own usefulness. and feared
tL--s .L-y ---i1 G-.I stsSis S'N~uPeSiVn gone
II the laws were published IN such q form
that everyb body might read and understand
them. Hence, ali the vIllianles Of style
that clerical unsklllfulness left uncommit-
ted, professional selhshness perpetrated.
The statutes were henceforth filled with
vain repetitions, technical terms and de-
ludIng provisos and whereases and thus
We are framing them on this very day.
Written Law is Ia great favor Just now.
The legislatures are constantly remolding
the common law into the form Of statutes,
aud are constantly making statutes con-
cerning matters about which the common
Law is silent And, not finding their pas
SION for written Law fully satisfied with
this vast amount of statute making, they
have lately been regaling themselves with
"codihcatIon." There have been for some
time statutes ON almost every conceivable
subject, aud the enactment of new statutes
. on Old subjects, though an extensive work
leaves the legislatures with some leisure
inasmuch as the sessions Of the legislatures
Ike the days Of this season Of he ear, arr
gradually leDgthening. Hence ''codihca
, ton" has become = Legislative necessity
! Taken in connection with statute making
it makes q Legislative process something
like this tirs', Al many and a. pTo.ix anC
! incomprehensIble statutes are passed a
possible; then they are boiled down int
!. paragraphs A. brief and obscure N the wi
/ aud hand Of man can make them. Tn
Code 10, Of course, always n few year
! behind the statute book; %, in looking u
. the Law IN any case, We read h1t in tn
4 code brief statement that We cannot un
derstand. then we read in later statue
book long Modification Of the brief statt
ment, and this, tso, We cannot understand
1 a. - kaA sln.A ru