New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-03-16
DIscrSsIyG THE cITIL c0DM

MEETING or TIE BAR AssOCHTipN-A COMMITTEE
RrruHr OPPOSED 10 THE MKAsuE.-R'iAEHe
~ IFS FAVOR
There was a meeting Of the Bar Association last
evening for the discussion Of the Field Civil Codo
now before the Legislature. The general scnu-
ment of tho meeting was beyond q doubt
one of opposition 70 tho measure. Cliff
ford A. Hand. as chairman Of the Com
mittec which had been directed TO examine the CIVIL
Code aud present ts conclusions 10 the as5ocahon'
read q long and comprehensive report. The commit
tee opposed the measure in the strongest terms.
~ IL said as to every topic with which 1t deals
il eifaccs the common law. single legislative oct
will usIrp the place OF ths wisdom and experience
of many centuries aud wll DC 4 startling aud dan
perous experiment. Tho report then cited instances
collected from various sections IN which What were
considered Objectionable or absurd provisions were
embodied. Inc whole subject was then summed up
rs follows:
Whatever may be the theoretical advantage Of
n general codhcatiOn of our law, no lawyer VIII
deny that the immediate results no least OF SUCH q
Transformation will be- disastrOug-that the volume
ms W, "a the uncertainty Of Litigation will be largely
increased. aud that much valuable time Will b. cN-
pended In judicial efforts 10 bridge over the gall br-
tween the system under which have always
lived and the one proposed rs "a 5ulstit ute
John FrauEchhc'mCr was Tie first 10 raise pro-
that the association instead Of approving the Ctl'
cisms which the committee had made upon tho
faults of this code" should declare first OF ALL whether
IL was in favor Of cOdcatiOr or not. II IL was the
proper thing was TO have the faults corrected. and
not 10 condemn this work because 10 had some dc"
fects. This code did effectively and ably the work
il pretended 10 dot codled the substantial com
mon law of the state. II 1t adopted IN tins state
IL soon would be other States. and there would
come to be something like n uniformity law in the
different States.
William Mann supported the report Of the COM
mittee. Ccphas Brainprd spoke Of tbs high char
acter and great fame OF the three authors Of TINS
cOde-Messrs. Field. Noyes and Bradford. lie knew
the feeling against Mr.. Field in the association, ana
that the mention of his there was like shaking
a red rag in flock OF turkeys But the Bar A5SO-
citation and the lawyers could not stop tho
progress of the idea Of cOdiicalOu. Ii easy
enough 10 ridlcule any measure, even the Revised
Statutes but the thing Tor the association TO con
sIder was what would be the best form which codl-
icatIon should assume.
against Mr.. Field had actuated the committee IN
making its report. He thought that the state OF
New-YOrk was under great obligation to MIR. Fleld'
and the spealter never tet 1t 30 much az When MS
code of procedure was superseded by another one.
But there not in the State of New-YOrk man
big enough to cOdiiy the common law of the state,
and Mr. Field had failed rs any single man would
Inevitably fail. Such cOdhcatiOn could properly he
made only by an ASSOCIATION Of lawyers OF the very
highest ability who should devote themselves TO inc
work.
Edward Patterson moved that the report be
printed and sent to the Legislature. and that com
mittee be appointed to oppose tho adoption OF inc
code before the Legislature W. III. ArnouX wanted
an amendment added TO the effect that tho Opnosi-
ton was only TO the code lin its present form 80
that the Legislature might not understand
that the association was opposed to cOdlnCatlOn
in every form, but the amendment was voted down.
Other remarks were made by &. &, Beinan and eN-
JndRe Shipman. The motion was adopted. Inc
committee appointed 38 Xaates itaG% tine Sns
Matthew, John NJ. Scrlbner, Herbert Is. Turner,
and Douglass Campbell.