New-York tribune., 1884-02-25
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE.

IAhlNO VOTE OF THE LAWYERS OF NEw-YORK-
THE CIRCULAR LETTER AND ANSWERS
Shall codi6catIon Of the common law be at
tempted That is one of the most important ques-
tons which the State Legislature answers tins year.
1t is not new question. 1t part of the scheme
OF codificatOn contemplated by the Constitution Of
1o46 that as far as practicable and expedent" the
whole body of the law of this State should be
reduced into written and systematic code" With
the adoption of the Code of Procedure laftcrward,
on the revision of 1877, called the Code of Civil
Procedure), which merely regulated the methods of
practice of the civil courts there was little trouble:
and 1t has been in operation since 1s4s. But the
commissioners appointed by the Legislature to do
the work of cOdifcation did not complete their la
bors upon the so-called Civil Code the common
law codifcation that it could be presented
to the Legislature until 1865 The commits.
sioners David Dudley Field William
Curtis NOyes and A. w. Bradford formerly Sur
rogate of this county Mr. Field is the only one Of
the three now living, Mr.. Noyes having died before
the code was reported In 1865. Since that year the
Civil Code has had varying fortunes. 1t was per-
mltted to sleep almost forgotten for number OF
years. then II was suddenly reused into vigorous
vitality, and has since occupied considerable of tho
time of each Legislature. Twice has it passed the
Assembly and Senate and each time II was vetoed
by the Governor-once by Governor Robinson aud
again by Governor Cornell. Last year its adoption
was passed with great energy but it failed of enact
ment. In the meantime, however, the Code
of Criminal Procedure, which performed the same
Office for the criminal that the Code of
Civil Procedure did for the civil courts, and the
Penal Code, which purported to be the cOdiEcaticn
OF the common law concerning crime, had both be-
come law.
The Civil Code alone remained To complete
the system OF codes which the Legislature had
authorized under the Constitution of 1916 Bnt
over this was the real struggle Its opponents and
the opponents of codifcation in general had been
comparatively Indifferent TO the enactment of the
other codes. The criminal codes affected compare
lively few lawyers i'll their practice and few law
abiding citizens In their relations with each other.
aud while the execratiOns of the bench and
bar at the Inconsistencies and antiquities of the
Code of Civil Procedure have been loud and deep
they have been indicative of the imperfections of
the work of Mr.. ThrOop (the chief cOmpiler rather
than of any strong sentiment against the principle
of practice code But the Civil COde-the put
ting into statutory form of the law rs it affected
the business, commercial and industrial relations of
everyday life, the rights of persons and property
which before had been left be declared out of the
learning and consciences of the judges-that was
felt TO be quite n different and vastly more mpor-
tant thing. The greater the prospect became of its
adoption, the stronger grew the opposition; until
it finally assumed its present formidable proper
tions
A BURNING QUESTION IN THIS LEGISLATURE.
But the present session promises To witness the
greatest struggle over this question II appears 10
be felt upon both sides that the disposition to he
made of it this year is likely TO be decisive. The
strongest forces being mustered for and against
The friends of the measure have been distributing
pamphlets and letters on the subject far and wide.
M Al.s
whose influential members arc opposed to the
civil code, has not been idle. The committee
appointed to urge the rejection of the proposed
Civil Code" has been distributing to members of
the Legislature and bar of the State 5000 copies
of James {. Carter's monograph of over 100 pages,
written in opposition to the measure. To this Mr..
Field has published detailed reply. pamphlet
by J. Bleccker Miller, pointing out salient objec-
tiOns TO the proposed code, has also been widely
circulated. The force of many OF the criticisms
that had been passed upon the code evidently was
appreciated by its friends; for in the bill
as presented in the Senate Janu-
ary 8, many changes made in the provisions
that had provoked the strongest adverse comment.
Following are the principal changes made in the
Civil Code as introduced into former Legislatures
II is made to conform to the Code of Civil Proce-
dure where necessary; introduces new legislation
as to apprentices; as to limitation of bequests and
deyses 30 corporations: to succession of husband
where wife dies leaving children to interest as
to of former partne ship names; as 10 nsolyent
assignments; as TO holidays. and in many other re-
spects. II Omits among Others, the following fea-
lures which il formerly contained namely, the ex-
ensonO power OF minor over eighteen 10 contract;
the making libellous an imputatl0n OF contagious
disease; all changes i'll the law of legitimacy; the
right OF an adopted child to take as AN actual lie
scendant through will naming only descendants
generally the extension of power OF aliens To hoih
property; all provisions as to navigation; the
changes i'm the statutes of descent and dstrbution
the abolition of dover and curtesy; the severe
nenolties for renting q single room To more than
one family; the whole article aS To General Averages
,,vo of one partner to renOunce membership before
tho and of the time agreed upon;the provision making
= nsurious note good in the hands of an innocent
holder and the prohibition of injunctions against
legislative act of municipal corporation By these
alterations and elimnatons II is claimed that all
the objections specifically directed at this particu
lar codlication met or avoided that the result
Is 10 leave only about fifteen sections upon COM
paratively trivial matters the most important pro-
yiding for abolition of days of grace consti-
tuting the only changes In existing laws effected by
this code; that the arguments of the opposition,
therefore, must now be directed only at the prin-
ciple of codidcation of the common law in general
and not specifically at this particular example OF
it, The sneer has been returned from the other side,
that il Mr. Field continues 10 throw ont objection
able provisions as they are pointed out, there VIII
soon be nothing left for the Legislature To enact
and even Mr.. Carter lends his pen TO tho sarcastic
bypetbole that MIR. Field would appear TO be will
ing to consent to strike from the proposed