New-York tribune., 1884-02-25


perainIng 70 real estate The Field Code excellent in
many respects, hut 1t is not broad enongh'
District-Attorney George B. Curtlss' OF Broome
County, writes:
Because instead Of making our system ofurisprudence
fixed and certain II would furnish ne" pO'H'S o
controversy.
Justice Edgar NJ. Cullen, of Supreme Court OF
Kings County, said;
I+bni the task OF codlfving the common law Of tho
sta, m cot uv es IN ne impracticabe Even ii
complished there grave doubts whethc II Will Ih ~
could he codided viii good results, out even ~ penal
law the code made some chances wmcn wohheH h' ~ m
AS to the Field Code am not familiar enough Win II 10
express an opinion
Kings County Judge II. A. Moore said
its mpossibe 70 make lronclad rule for all AFFAIRS
Of private social or business IRE some tngs III st eycy
case Change would not do away with the dsVahttRes
under which the labor. Carteis panphict GU
the subject is the abIest presentation OF the 10
a code, which have seem
A. r. Clearwater, District-Attorney of Ulster
County, replying seriatim TO The IRiBUNLs ln-
qulries says
Frsf-I think a codifcation Of the common law unwse
and variance with the genius Of our institutions
codicatjon Of the common law Thrd-lt creates dis
tnctous unknown TO the common law when VIII leau W
useless litigation
Ex-senator Andrew J. Colyin Of Albany says:
code would put the common law In strait-iacket,
and destroy It's adaptaOity TO new casen other "OTs
common law Is the heritage OF freeo the code belongs
to despotism or Imperialism. When the common Law be,
cOdihcd. then enrObe and bcwg the judges Ihey
should 30 together.
i. X. Coudert says:
1t would Introduce the utmost confusion into all admin
strati0u OF justice The mischief done by that confusion
would be ncalcuabe The experiment has never De9n s
made on such scale. New states may make ~ with t,
tie risk. Let wait until other communities have tired
It, No one man. however able and eminent. perform
that test alone. II done at all II should be done Dy
subjects separately considered persons except the
author and MS immediate friends aud disciples asked for
experiment merely to crafty them
Ernest IL. Crosby says:
MI Fields code is not embodiment of the law as it
exists and such an embodiment is mpracticabe.
Presiding Justice Noah Davis, of the Supreme
Court, sald
lam opposed to the codlncaon Of the common law and
especially the system Oi cOdhcaOn proposed DI what
with such vast and constantly changing currents OF bs
growing out OF the commerce 0f the country, anu
the innumerahe forms in which Is pursueO, tnsehoF
with the improvements constantly made IN railroads'
tccgaphs, telephones and various elci1c and "lher ais
coveric7 by which the alhis ana ral, Vi mn n nus NIT
conducted managed, the common law ana ltS eeitra
principles should ot let tree and mcohtiol9u NY Ia AI m
sufficient to apply It's principles TO every
tion I,.t m iniipDs and will rd to increased litigation
and enormous expense In the effort TO so cohsuuc
statutes as 10 apply them to new questions ana con-
tTOtcrsics.
The Field Code Is specially obnoxious TO these o9ieG-
tions. besides II Is "a many pIttulNrS ciitc an i i
digeed open u couuctng cous,reih1 u anu ce, t 10
be The cause OF great volume Oi Jicll lhcl prelalon
eycPhas been. II Hs very different tlng 10 codliy IA9
practice the cout for that is always system OF hNcd
rules and FORMS 80 the criminal lazy Wmch Is Ior tnG
most part a system Of statutes when were scattered
urOUgh volumes, and The cndHy5h- Oi thcIn
was simply coatin9 them IN plecr olh ihe ,oG, T
law however is systrh 0 -eh'aI piIhCipIs t III
tAu wisdom of courts merchants ana nlsuss lhcn W az
classes; capable Of modification ahd change IA ucT az
phc1ton, ahd ~ thtr very ha'iIe "a ~ I'm,
fined the bonds OF statutory llw wi,n"ll often h'Ahs
rAem the cause and source OF great injustice
Judge j. I. Daily, OF the Court of Common Pleas,
said:
You would By the adoption Of the code unsette more
than you would settle.
John Foley Dstrict-At. orney of Saratoga
Comfy reulied "No" to both questions
Because OF the sOlnd REASONING advanced by James g.
Carter, esq, in his argument published IN pampaet
form.
Ex-County Clerk II. A. Gumbleton SAYS:
object TO coIidcatioI because 1f the cNtreme d1-
Guilty OF makiug codhraton which would be Of any
special benefit 70 either the profession OF I!' "u w
not know that the Field Code surnOlnlsl ~
u. w. Guernsey, County Judge Of IS
County says of the proposed Field Code:
If wond ba a lasal "strut- lcket" l think that ii
would IN iuauy cases work great injustice.
District-Attorney a. G. Harwck,o Yates County,
W rites:
NV reasons are n IRE fully forth in paper by James
c Carer on the subject thIn can here u 'nen f2Ftn
IL to fully explain my position
Ar emas II, Holmes gives as his answer to the third
question:
No Because would overthrow all present settled laws
and rules Of law and involve years of experimenting at
needles ozpsn,o Nlneynine out Of every hundred
lawyers are in my OpJi0n opposed 10 IT,
Samue Hand, of Albany, says that he does not
favor the Field Code
For many reasons; among Others, that It ls not accu
dsest OF the common law nor Is it. az believe,
clearly expressed
Distrct-Attorney d. Cady Herrick, OF Albany,
says:
nm opposed to a cod because OF the immense amount
cf litigation IT will lead to in constituting, and the uncer-
taiuty it viii cause IN our law.
Ex-Dlstrict-Attorney 5. Hotang, of Albany,
says;
II The common law IA 50 well Understood as 20 he capa-
bic Of statement in statutory FORM then code Is need
less not IS safer tO accept the decisions of the
courfs III en,on than the scalt decision OF
mission.
Ex-Assemblyman Robert Ray Hamilton says:
believe any code which beyond mere revision
oft1c statutes viii un7ele the law because Of the DIM
oulty OF rather mpo sDiity or accurately stating IT.
aud think this code is particularly imperfect ana loose III
us statements.
Judge j. KecB, of Fulton County, writes
Because in my opinion the cOlicauon OF the common
law would relieve to any ex-ent the exsdns uncer-
tantics which viii doubtless prevail TO greater OF less
extent under oar system OF administering justice
William Henry Knox says:
object because no GO lccomper 10 ok into the fr
tUic. Every article tle subject IN We ever read,
which was sound in its reasoning against cOdica-
ton.
GrosycnOr p. Lowry says:
Idonot think codncaton OF the common law is fe1sl
lie, consistently with the genius OF In sisn law think
codhcauon will tend 10 Increase litigation and add TO
the cost OF il,
Judge Richard L. Larremore, Of the Court of Com
mon Pleas said:
need of exbility in common laws would not be
satisfied in cOdlhcatiOn OF them; latitude IL re-
gard To urecedcns Is demanded than code would afford.
Mr. Field Is "a excellent lawyer and do not doubt
but that he has obtained results admirable In their way,
but opposed TO code for the reason that sgeh an ar
rangemcn OF the laws would not meet emergencies which
are bound in the administration OF JUSTICE
Supreme Court Justice L. 5. LandOn. OF Schenec-
tady, says:
code attempts settle the law for the future. This
requires perfection or human wisdom, including the
OF full and perfect expression. II adopted lawyers
VIII degenerate into students OF a text instead OF
science The common law Is the best surety OF human
rights: crude legislation is their great peril.