New-York tribune., 1884-02-25

ton.
GrosyenOr p. Lowry says:
Idonot think codncaton OF the common law IA fe1sl
lie. consistently with the genius OF In dish law think
codhcaion will tend 10 increase litigation and add TO
the cost OF IT,
Judge Richard L. Larremore Of the Court of Com
mon Pleas, said:
The need Of embnlty in common laws wonld not be
satisfied in a cOdncatiOn OF them; latitude IL re-
gard to precedcns Is demanded than code would afford
Mr.. Field Is a excellent lawyer and do not doubt
Int that he has obaued results admirable in their way,
but opposed TO code for the reason that such an ar
are bound in the administration of Justice
Supreme Court Justice L. 5. LandOn, of Schenec-
tady, says:
code attempts to settle the law for the future. This
requires the perfection or human wisdom lncludng the
power OF full and perfect expression adopted lawyers
VIII degenerate into students OF text instead Of
science The law Is the best surety or human
rights crude legislation is their great peril.
Ceylon ii. Lewis, Distrlct-AttOrney of OnOndaga
County, writes
do not consider it possible to reduce the principles Of
the common law to the limited verbase OF statute.
Ex-Congressman Scott Lord writes
The practice codes greatly increased the labor OF
the legal profession and the volumes Of the legal reports
a similar result but disastrous, I have no doubt
would follow the adoption OF the Field Civil Code" and
the numberless amendments which would ensue.
j. Bleecker Miller says:
object the oodincation and the Field Code because
they are utter nonsense.
Ex-District-Attorney Edward j. Meegan, of Al
bany, says
what is good in it Is not new and what s new is not
good Ten years time is I'm Judgment necessary
TO frame amendments to fit 1t for passage.
Judge Alexander McCue, of the Brooklyn City
Court says:
would be In favor OF the codihcaton OF tho common
law practicable but the task Ia too great for
any one man. the existing state OF the common law
AT THIS time any attempt Introduce code would prob
ably make matters worse than they now am not
sufficiently liar with the proposed Field Civil Code TO
discuss 1t.
David McAdarn, Chief Justice of the City Court.
says:
am onposed 70 the codincation OF tho common law
IL IA a collection OF customs, rules and maIms, which
have acquired the foroe OF law by immenoria usage.
To condense those customs etc. into an mmutable code
of laws Is not only mpractcable but impossolo Practice
may be oOdied but experience has shown that IL takes
wears before the Intuition OF the codl-
hcrs ia settled by judicial Interpretation.
A. p. Man says:
1t is bad in principle and bad altogether. Tho common
law as now and practice is large part OF the ed
uoaton not merely OF Judges and lawyers but OF busi
aud the community at large IL cannot DO re-
duced TO statutory enaCtments without disturbing all
setted ideas upon the subjects mefdled with. What
we simply rovison OF our statutes like that OF
the the United States and many OF the separate
States Mr.. FeldB code IL not such areysion nor Ia it
anythisg hko a co nplete compendium or oommon-law
principles IL IA congOmsratlon OF Isolated portions OF
both common and statutory law. IL Will not slmplry
the law but will produce uncertainty, confusion and
litigation.
Professor Henry S. Mccall. Of the Albany Law
Sohoo writes:
Tho Field Code Is incomplete; some Of Il Is usalA