Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-08
LAW AND LAw-MAKIEG.


That was suggestive debate in the State
Senate the other day, upon the question OF
the best time for doing committee work
and for holding general sessions, and
among the more curious things said in it
was the declaration of Senator johnson
that he did not believe in committees, and
if he had his way would abolish them all,
save the Judiciary Committee, and so
make it necessary for the whole Senate to
discuss every new bill throughout. No
doubt the committee system is liable to be
abused Perhaps we might go farther, and
say no doubt it has been abused. And no
doubt it is mistake TO suppose that there
is anything to be gained by securing the
Senate more time for legislation. There
is no terror in the thought that such a
change in the system would prevent the
Senate from disposing of many bills. The
point to be considered is whether the char
acter of the bills to be disposed of could
be determined judiciously. But Mr. John
son made the mistake of condemning a
good system because of It's abuses. Legs
lative committees are intended to pro-
tect the bodies which appoint them
against the confusion, waste of time, and
danger of sinister legislation, which
must be incurred by referring all bills at
once to the Legislature itself. When con
scientiousIy administered these committees
do undoubtedly clear away great deal Of
crude and unfit legislation, which other
wise would distract and delay business.
But the question of the methods OF law
making is far broader one than this OF
legislative committees. The truth is that
legislation is becoming more and more a
nuisance and an evil. The fagrant
superfuousness of very much of it has
become so apparent that efforts have been
made to keep it within bounds. The new
Constitution of California attempted this
by designating a class ofsubjects whichlwere
to be regarded as special legislation and
therefore prohibited. Before the new Con
stitution was framed still more sys-
tematic attempt in the same direction had
been made in the framing of the Codes.
When they were completed it was inno-
Gently imagined that we had now body
of law so full and so carefully arranged
that legislation thenceforth would be
uncalled for save upon new subjects.
Vain expectation New laws continued to
be Matched out with customary fecundity,
and year after year fresh volumes
of amendments to the codes - two
fourths frivolous and one fourth mis-
chievous - threatened to bury the
original compilations completely. We
are now experiencing the same thing in
regard to the new Constitution. There
has never been a session of the Legislature
at which so many bills have been intro
duced at so early a stage. Some two hun
bred bills have already been brought
forward and this is the first week of the
session OF these bills it is perfectly
safe assertion that tive-sevenths are either
pure rubbish, or positively Objectionable,
and that less than ten per cent. OF them
possess any merit whatever. The lawyers
are responsible for great deal of the use
less legislation which clogs and hampers
the administration of justice They are
responsible for great mass of insignificant
amendments and verbal bubbles, ripper
les, duplicities which confuse practice,
render Judicial action uncertain, and az
gravate and infame litigation. So far as
the public interests are concerned it would
be desirable that the majority of their sug-
gestions for alteration of the existing laws
should be rejected.