, 1879-01-19

sales. b; CONSIDERATION. 3ll,uuu. foftl OF c1tF
limits, sales, 2; consideration, $4,000. West
of city limits, sales. l; consideration, Sl,590.
Total sales, 81; total consideration, $780, OIL.
LAW REFORM.
TIE PRESENT CONDITION OF TEE
LAWS OF ILLINOIS.
TO the Editor Of The Tribune.
CHICAGO, Jan. 1S.-A writer in the January
number OF the 4dmericdn Ldao Reyiew thus states
the present condition of the criminal laws Of
England:
They are scattered through fifty volumes Of
statutes, and mar be found declared and eluci-
dated BY q search through l. 200 volumes Of re-
100. GOO cascs besides unwriten rules and Elnci-
plcs, briefly comprise the law OF England. Stat
utes have been repealed, decisions oserrulcd; but
no mark distinguishes the living from the dead.
The rights OF husband and wife and landlord and
tenant are established by various enactmcnts OF
Lawmakers from the Saxon dominion to the reign
OF Victoria. They settled by authorities rang
ing from the tEentisc Of Ganyil to the decisions OF
Cairns. The duties OF Coroner and the powe r of
1as a5 @ s o II
1879. 4 study Of the statutes from the las1 OF
Victoria to the first Of Henry I'LL might DC ncccs-
sary to decide upon the limits OF a crime and the
extent OF lis punishment
In 1917 Sir Samuel Romilly, In reviewing
Bcntha1n's Essay On Codtdcation, said of the
then condition of the law Of England: 1.-THE
difficulties, the expense, the uncertainty Of the
issue, and in many cases the lamentable delay
Of decision, are but too we'll known to the great
number to whom this is 4 source Of profit, and
to the far greater number upon whom this
brings down calamity and ruin.''
The first act Of the first session Of the First
General Assembly OF the State Of Illinois was
nf -; rF
confusion as the body Of the lar Of the new
State. It adopted the common Law Of England
and all statutes made in aid thereof
Of general nature and not local to that King
dom, excepting the second section Of the sixth
chapter Of 10 Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of
10 Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter Of 81 henry
Will, declaring that the same should be soon
sidcred as Of full force until repealed by lcgis-
latiye authority" The absurdity Of tue posi-
tion in which this placed the new State was
recognized by the Supreme Court in 1S41, when
it said:
II we arc to be restricted to the common law as
it was enacted at James, rejecting all moditlca-
ma.ie By practice and by statutes. except our own
statutes, we will ind that system entirely lnap-
piicabe to our present condition, for tho simple
reason that 1t is more thaE 200 yeara behind the
age.
An escape was then devised III holding that,
sfrom that period We must look to American
legislation and reports by American courts for
improvements aud notifications In che common
law" The right to distran for rcntin the State
Of Illinois was accordingly found, not in the
statutes Of the State enacted after 1919,
not in the decisions Of the courts of last re-
sort, not in the common law or statutes
prior to James l., but in an old statute OF the
Colony Of Virginia, enacted IN lt30, nearly half
a century before the Declaration Of Independ-
ence. The territory northwest OF the Ohio
River was then within the limits of Virginia,
and, of course, within the Jurisdiction Of this
statute. In 1888 this territory was cedcd BY
ordinance of 1857 Territorial Government WIS
erected therein. This was divided into the
Territories OF Ohio and Indiana by the act Of
May I, 1900 In 1909 Illinois Territory was
carved out Of that of Indiana. As already
mentioned, the first session ot the Legislature
Of the State Of Illinois convened in 1919. If the
common law Of England as then adopted was
modified by q colonial act OF Virginia passed in
1730, transmitted through the Northwest Terri
tory, Indiana Territory, and the Territory of 1llt
nois, WIS not the common law also modified by
the subsequent legislation of Virginia, Of the
Northwest Territory, and Ut the territories of
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinoiss The act Of March
30, 1919, repeating laws and parts OF laws
.passed by or under the authority OF any Terri
torial Government heretofore cxistingh docs
not dispose OF the question. The Colonial act
Of Virginia had beep repealed by the Legislative
Assembly OF the Territory OF indiana. Notwitn-
stauliug this, the Supreme Court held tnat the
modification which was engraited upon the COM
mon law br the Virginia act was not repealed
with the act, itself, and remained as part Of the
common law; of the State Of Illinois notwith-
standing the repeal.
We thus find incorporated 10 the laws Of this
State:
/. Usages and customs "derived down in
writing and transmitted from age to age, es-
pecaly since the beginning OF Edward II
9. Tie acts Of Parliament during and prior to
Henry III, Of which no record remains, *sbut
which, being made before the time Of memory,
do now obtain and are taken as part OF the
common law and immcmorial custom OF the
Kingdom"
5. Fragments of the civil law OF Rome, which,
In spite Of the English common lawyers, secured
q place IN the common law through the equity
aud ecclesiastical Jurisdictions.
4. The decisions Of the Courts OF England,
"expounding, declaring, and publishing what
the law u Of the g Kingdom is, especially when
such decisions hold consonancy aud congruity
with the resolutions and decisions OF prior
times.''
S. The numbcress statutes, filing many vol
umes, extending from the reign Of Edward the
Confessor to that OF James I.
6. The enactments' affecting the common law
by the Colonial Legislature Of Virginia, and the
Legislatures Of the Northwest, Ohio, Indiana,
and Illinois Territories.
I. The decisions Of the American Courts be-
1919. ~
Upon each frontiersman was imposed the
duty Of ascertaining at his peril what enact
ments Of William the Conqucror, lost acts OF
Parliament, usages Of the English people, frag-
ments OF the Civil and Ecclesiastical law, aud
decisions in Westminster Hall, were OF L general
nature, aud, therefore, in force as rules to reg
ulatc his conduct md define his rights. When
all these we're ascertatned, another difficulty re-
maincu. He was required to determine what por-
tion was in force in the State Of Illinois, appc
able to the condition Of this country, and what
had been abrogated By the circumstances Of
time aud situation. Let those who imagine
this an easy task read the opinions Of Judges
Trumbu]l and Cation in See1ey Us. Peters,
Gilman, 80. The present condition Of the laws
OF Englandis is not more complex and confused
than was that Of Illinois in the Year OF Grace
1920.
No systematic attempt has been made to sim
plifys aud rearraDge this heterogeneous body
OF law. The General Assembly Of the State
has, by patchwork system Of legislation,
pruncd away some OF the more pa1pable ao-
surditics thus adoutcd, and the ourts have
modified and abrosatcd others. For example,
in 1927, the benefit OF clergy aud the trial bY
battle were formally abolished By legislative en-
actment in this State. The confusion has peen
increased by new statutes and by the decisions of