New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-15
SOME CIVIL CODE PALACES.
A LETTER FROM WILLIAM b. HoFNBLowEF.

SOME CIVIL CODE PALACES
A LETTER FROM WILLIAM n. HoBNBLo"ER.
To the EdttOr Of me TTtbHFe.
SIR: The most frequent used and most loudly
urged argument in favor Of the Civil Code now beore ne
Legislature IL that Il will reduce the volume Of ugauh'
This Is a specous Argument well adapted 10 eaten the
popular and TO css suspicion upon the NOTES oI 'no
LAWYERS who oppose the Code. But is The fai'es' OF
false pretencs- II Il directly contrary 70 al experience
Legislation breeds litigation Statutory construction Is inc
most perplexing the most technicsl the most
costly OF all forms Of litigation. witness inc
countless volumes Of reports constituting
Code q Procedure witness the bulky
Textbooks and the wilderness Of decisions upon our
Statutes Of Frauds and statutes Of Limitations
Surely the Of reform, If II De reform VIII not oe
aided by wifl peryerson Of aos such as Is involved
in the astounding assertion that Code Will decrease u
CATION. do hesitate predict and the uniform eI
perionce OF past bears To the sOundness 81 my
prediction that the passage u this Code will oVer-hem
the courts with litigation, and viii result IN the eIpend
turc Of hundreds OF thousands Of dollars Annually ID me
process. Of construction and Interpretation. re-
Gently took the trouble to snayZe volume
OF Court ~ Appeals Reports selected at random
and found that fully twOthirds ef the cases involved
the construction OF statutes while " the cases dealing
with common law, pure and simple, only the smallest
fraction from any doubt 10 what the principles OF
the were but The application Of those principles
TO complicated novel states u facts Under Code
such az this should s have the courts 10 have
the principles applied do now but should also
have to 60 10 the courts TO ascertain what
those principles arc as stated In the Code.
And what barren contest Of technical ana
narrow word studying statutory construction II! HOWL
bettes the mind and how II glores the sharp tricks OF
pettifogger who rcves in discovering fyspecks and
who takes delight in discussing the effect OF comma or
a semicoOnl
Go again II is said, the Code will make the law access
BILE and ineligible 10 the layInan. Here. once more
the advocates Of the Code delightfully."- Ignore facts.
Has the Code OF Procedure made the practice OF
the law Ineligible 70 tie layman' II vas
loudly vaunied by rs advocates that such would
he the result ssis Wanted ny ts advocates AS 10
this Code Every man his lawyer" they said But
what Sc the hard facti Practice has become more com
pcaed science than No one but the most skilled
practitioner avoid the pitfalls which threaten him on
every hand. Collaborating has become a new and most
necessary branch OF professional education one VINO
has mastered the complicated sections Of the written
Code OF Procedure has still master the gos-are- the
commentaries the reports the digess the weekly notes Of
case. and the daily law bulletins aud even then he Is
liable 10 ANONYMOUSLY turned out Of court by some
younger and sharper paneaine attorney Whohas
discovered come overlooked provision some more re-
cent construction Tho ayman who should undertake to
navigate his own lawsuit through the toTtuOus channels
OF Code procedure would he asrash the sndsman who
should undertake to navigate his own vessel without
pilot through the not more dangerous channel OF Hell
Gate DO not let me be misunderstood. do not deny
that the Code OF Procedure has merits nor do deny mat
IL abolished many od-estabusbed grievance. l
am even prepared To admit that Code OF
Practice f. necessary. merely mean 10 say that the
particular merit claimed for It IN advance,
that it would make every man his own lawyer was
trau-narent false preence false the Otht prehce
that Il would tgatiOn and marvel at the a.
sursnce OF the who can repeat The same g!uerhS
snd delusve false preence with regard 70 this Code II
will M M he
rary Il will make the law more technical more uhcut
and more costly than ever
Nor viii the code do away with the reports and teIt
books which exist This. also. II a Transparent
Examined by the courts word by word and eagse by
clause and the first and preliminary question VII nav
the, common LAW or Is then S Sls Sors Viii n
evitably go back 20 the reports ana the ''a.-
books 20 ascertain It's Interpretation ana hS
s limitations It's quscat ana its applications ana
the which arise under the section wiz e Srens"
decided precisely by coIaung, com
nfd%S 6m the down This
what has actually happened under our Code OF ttoced
The Code undertook In statutory form VINO are
iRhh he court. at once held that these pro
rritfen law and to-day 20 back vesey and Brown
and Paige and EdSald- aud storg EdGy no r I
per or necessary parties to suit for equitable renei ana
we go back TO Chy aud Blackstone snd KEN 10 sscf
tain who proper necessary parties TO an acton Ior
d DAM 5o,d .Ux .crtIop Of this Code to be
drcIaratOry OF the common law, we must
stl recur To our old authorities to interpret ana Apply
the law But the court EhOnd n0d tnat ne section IL
chsuge in the law al once launched On An emo
leas VOYAGE exploration 10 hnd ont the true lne 'pret
lion and the true limitations qualifications and app
csfIops Of the new rule OF Law and must Still have
recore 70 our old charts guide far as may be on
mis- new voyage give our bearings and enable us
"a 10 orr ckOnings must resort 10 the old de
cisous for snal0gtes for foundation prinei-
Nos for rules Of construction aud interpre-
iation Hence In either case, whether any section OF
THIS ode held be declaration or the law or an acI
anon OF the law we must still have recourse 10 the eI
sting authorities and shall need all our present case
law and t. t-bOOk law only we snail add 10 all thesc
rendtne series OF aries and decisions the
~ OF the Code and constantly recurring annual crop
OF ative amendments, requiring to oe isooharueu o
IL, he nrior t.It WILLIAM 3. HORSEPOWER