New-York tribune., 1878-03-15
THE SUPPLEMENTAL CODE VETOED.

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE FROM GOVERNOR ROBIN
soN--TuE CODE CRUDE AND UNsA1IsFAcroRY-
AN UPHEAvAL OF OUR LEGAL PROCEDURE.
ALBANY, March 14.-The veto of the Code
by is universally regarded as the result Of
the persuasion Of David Dudly Field Both Mr. Field
and Mr.. Throop OF the authors of the Code were
before tue Governor and argued on the subject at the
beginning of the week. Following arc the principal
points in the message sent to the Senate to-day
The Governor rccites the provision of tue Constitution
and the Acts of The Legislature under which the Com
missorers ofhe Code appointed Ill lSl7, who pre-
pared the Code of Civil Procedure which has constituted
the main body o. our civil practice since 1919
The srca, aim OF the Constitution of 1916 was to Sc
cure symnptric system of Jurisprudence including II
code of political criminal and civil law. The adoption
ot tie original Code OF Procedure was parGal acuo
plisment of this constitutional pnrpnse so far ~
Thc intent of the 18th section Of the 1St article has
never been fulfilled. Realizing this defect III tie law
act authorizing certain commissioners 10 revise sim
plify, arrange and consolidate all statntes 1i the
Hen nature" No fair imam doubts that the aim Of
this act was 10 revise the existing general acts;
and not in any way TO change Cur settled system o eSa
rrariice. But instead of APPLYING Themselves 10 tls
needed of scattered and conInsed statutes
about an entire uphcaval 0f our legal procedure H.
1876 they submitted the first instaiment OF their pro
posed work in the shape OF substitute lor naf'
OF our practice law. consisting Of Las sections Ihs
the Legislature OF that year eng, enacted; & u ,s was no
The present bill OF s2i sections IL the reinndr of thc
proposed substitute hau ,,i nnrt nt tha rc
vscrs might find IN II advaIt iecs 81 iar o"cg.iu5
regret to say that my convictions forbid this The bi
contains many and grave defects thlt shou" Ia'I o.
nv duty il I consented Ia its enactment .
NV first objection s that IL was never consiittiona
passed. The Journal of the Senate shows tiai s read
ing was dispensed with on motion III thai House See
tion Is of article 3 of the Constitution. provides that
ono bill shall I've passed unless nv llc asS'n "l ~, %
jorv all the members elected to each branch OF t
Legislature and the question upon the final paSsa
SHAH be taken Immediately upon lis last read
ing, and the yeas and nays en'crrn on lh,
Journal" This section mafestly conienpntes read
Ing, and under its provisions no valid vote eoud Dc
this bill until after II had beeh read. ne as
reading" of hill is not. aud never has hee ny usage
since the adoption OF the Constitution ieadhS nN
title only. know no e0mpe'ehl authory WI Wpcn % NOUS
that the Constitution does not intend an actual lcaulhG
FARMER argument against the bill. my judgment.
Is that OF tue petitions and sGssesiiois saIercd IN Tvs
favor scarce single one falis To Iiaty iIs apon a.
by the suggestion that considerable ancndincnts ai
necessary. An discussions Of this act admit thal
i passed en %1,t be a. Gs largely n rcsn TO-
VI, that its passage ~ SIMPLY the mcinur 70 us
Committer saw s imperfections but believed heir cor
fncy alored attain this end and In the scaniy time
snatchel from Senatorial dutics thty made ncaN 3U
amonlmeutS the bill as reported by the rcviSciS y"
better commentary the of the report conld he
made. Iut the opportunities Of the scnntc committee
ts Tf iabor fhc hundreds Of amcndmcnis which
tncv nanc alone saved the bill from utter condclnna,on
-
ton, aud II Is slc' shape NOW.
Tne proceeds to sdtc i'll detail some or thc
Objectionable features of the Codc, and "dd,;
general comment To- c made unOn the whole ac i tld
while processing to be- code oi procedure ana to dra'
only with the main teudncc OF rights II constantly OYER
steps its prOVcscd limits ANA deals WITH tr law ~ rights
itscli. There striking Instances of tms:
The Code Procedure of 1SiS and 1919 although -
iiscif n model Of cltaTucss anu accuracy, WIs nNrd ~
meaning and established III OGly at enormous cN
ursc to tine peope at the State. At The cost of tnauy
millions dollars, the expense Oi many -'hstai
al rights il had ImDcfdcd IN the Jurspfidenc'
OF ti.e state understood by the courts, conpr'
hended by tho lawyers, checked 10y the restrict eA
pcricucc had placed around it, and Afforded prompt ana
cerfau redress ciy wrongs. It's rllcS, contained ~
statute Tran JO srctiOns with some well uuhc
stood PROVISIONS Of the Revised statutes ha up to le
time of partial repeal ia August last, 1ullA
covered the needs OF our legal practice. "
Is now proposed by tins blD, III az
dltion to the one which has preceded it, 10 Overrn h
entne system, sulplaut practice which We do kno"
by another OF 800 sections aud 200 page- which W.
civil law the subject OF the redress of gieN iic'-
into utter chaos The constructions winch nave
obtained for thirty years are 10 he upro0tcd La" :
OF personal rights % lie injected into the rules OF
practice. The salutary ch"cks which have been pH
upon the expenses Of litigation are 10 De thrown on
ana the staggering business Of the state j. 10 be hid
under heavy contribution To interpret at enormous eH
pcnse a new and uDWicldly system OF pihCllc law.
10 this outrage upon the people OF the State, cannot
consent to De party.