New-York tribune., 1884-12-28
TIE pROPOSED CITIL CODE.

One of the most effective pieces oi work nc
complished BY the l,ar Association OF this city has
been It's successful effort to prevent the enact
mont of the proposed cudilcation of the common
law tnn,vn os the Field tlvi Code. For three
sueeessive v,,nfs the representatives Of the as-
soeatiob have sioui, opposed the inssase oi
The measure before The judiciary Committees ~
hath houses of the Legislature aud oh one oe'
easioa when II reached Governor CORNELL his
sim,ature was refused ~ H. substantially nroh
the grounds that theF urged hpeh his ehisi'ltia7
ti0n, II Is fair 90 SAY that except Tor theii
efforts the property aud business Interests oi
the citizens of this state, now oohlfolled ny 'he
common law, would be governed ana regulated
by this statute. Their work III the last l-eglslat-
ure was especially effective. The Judiciary
Committee of the Assembly did not even report
the bill, while upon the last reading III the Sen
ate it received only seven vOies. a joint reso-
luton adopted Just before the Legislature ad-
iOurned authorized the Governor to appoint
commissioners to examine the civil Code ana
to report at the beginning of the next legisla-
" tive session upon the prOpricty OF adopting the
same. and if so, what, if any, amendments are
/" advisable"
That was the only result of the great labors
on the part of its friends last year to secure the
passage of the Civil Code. The Governor has
not appointed such commissioners. Doubtless
he recognizes the impossiblity of prevailing
upon any lawyers of the requisite degree OF
ability to undertake the task, whose minds
are not already too positively convinced either
of the wisdom or the folly of the measure to act
impartially in the matter. The bettcr-informed
lawyers of the State hav already reached
definite conclusions as to the merits OF the ques-
tion The extensive data collected Unpublished
by THE TRIBUNE last winter demonstrated that
while many eminent members Of the Bar were
in favor of common law codificatiOn, yet the
preponderance of sentiment among the ablest
iursts was opposed To the adoption at all events
of the Field Civil Code, II not To codificatQn in
general.
The controversy has again been resumed with
unusual vigOr. Pamphlets have been issued by
both sides. Discussion of the question Is filling
the columns of the law journals. Even the
English legal periodicals show their active In
terest by frequent comments on the situation.
The Bar Association pamphlets devote less at-
tcntlon this year to proving that codiilcation OF
the common law is impossible, and direct their
chiefly at the weak points OF this par
tlcuar attempt They dissect various portions
of It and point out its changes and msstate-
ments of the common law, and contend that the
ambiguity. contradictions and uncertainty OF
many provisions would result only In disadvan-
tagc 10 the cltizcu and lawyer alike. Tho
language OF the committee In c0ndcmning the
Field Code shows that they regard this matter
as of the last Importance, and coming from per
sons of less cmncncc and conservative charac-
ter than Professor Dwight and his associates
would seem almost cxtravagant In It's severity.
The answer made by the Code advocates de-
votes little attention 10 Mr.. Fields code but
directs ~ efforts almost exclusively to proving
the practicablity and wisdom OF comliOn-law
codinca,ion This leaves the srecliic objections
TO the Civil Code FOR the present substantially
unanswered. The opponents OF the Civil Code
enter upon the struggle this year with the nd-
titional advantage that rs support mud strength
m the Legislature has been wanng steadily
slnre llovttnut Cornell vctUrh II NJ 1892. Ui-
ltss tlnngr M the direction oi tliis sentiment
is Developed, ,he tack 81 The Bar Assurniluii
t0iniiitee ~ the approaching stssl0n til be
comparatively eas3 6hti