New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-02-05
THE CIVIL CODE.
VIEWS OF THE BENCH AND BAR.
1.-THE TRIBUNE" CANVASS OF 1884 RECALLED.

THE TRIBUNE" CANVASS OF 1854 RECALLED.
To ne Editor OF The Tribune.
SIR: When the proposed Field Civil Code,
which has again been introduced Senate bill, was
before the Legislature In February, 1884, THE TRIBUNE
made o comprehensive canvass among tho prominent
lawyers judges Of the State to ascertain as nearly
possible their sentiments upon codhcaton oil COM
mon law general. and upon Mr. Fields work In pr
cular Thous OF circulars sent TO sdch law
yers judges In all parts of the State, requesting a-
swern to the inquiry %, whether they In favor Of
common law cOdihcatton; GU, whether they were Ia
favor of the Field Cvll Code; aud (3 why. As had
charge OF tho execution of this undertaking. know that
the inquiry intended To be III tie. accordance with
your Instructions a. thorough and impartial posi-
be There seems be for supposnI that the
result does not still fairly represent the sentiment OF
tho bench and bar OF the state upon the subject
This canvass OF TIE TRIBUNE. however. has
recently been referred to by journals and indi-
vlduals that are advocating the Field Code MS
being an argument iu their favor An cx-
animation OF the figures published two years
ago will scarcely sustain this claim The total
number who declared themselves favor Of coiihcaton
OF the commOn law was 60; The number opposed to
coddcauon J5J. Those In favor Of the Field civil
Code numbered 1854 those opposed TO IL. GA. Thus
while there Dre sustaining colicatlon iu general
than opposed to the majority of those who did not
think well OF the Field Cole Its supporters was
large In fact. there wac declared against 1t
than In favor Of co LITIGATION in general.
The question before ne Legislature isno, whether
common law codlhcarOn is good thing or whether
civil GO e should he euIced but whether this particular
attempt by Mr. Field At cOdlcatUn should DO adopted
II may fairly conceded that there ~ pretty even Ill
vision u opinion among conpetcnt per-ons as to the
wisdom pract!cibty OF cOdiIcdton. Blu, that any
very large proportion OF them believe in tho proposed
Field Code ANA want to neronr law there Is no sats
factory proof 30 show Certainly TIE IRBUNEs CANVASS
among lawyers did not Snow It,
| Furthermore. aside from tho mere weight OF NUN
! heps IA q
| opinion proved to be agAlnst Mr. Fleds work'
Of THE TRGCSE's issue Of February 70.
ISIS win prove very upon TINS point Justices
Potter and Pratt appear TO be Tue Oh o! h 1u
IRENE or superior City courts who declare for the Iodc
General Wager Swayno Is the most eminent lawyer VINO
fAyurs tand he says that he only proper way I" bE
new enact Il one or TWO years In al
vance of its taking ct On the Other side stand such
opinions the following from Pr,siIns justice Noah
DAVIS Any attempt at codincdtlOh must bo injurious
and Will Load Ia increased litigation and enormous eX-
penso IN the effort 80 statutes 10 Ippy
them to new questions asa controversies. l"e fe''
Code Is specially Obnoxious TO these oDJcctohS hcses
1t Is in many particulars crude aud iliiEoscd open -
conflicting contraction AMI eer.aii 20 NC ''o o" W.
great volume OF judicial Interpretation more CONFUSING
embs rrassiug than tnc common aw ever has been
Chei Judge J0hh SIs"ICA' OF 'ue nupclIo. Co' y 'o
that he opposes thr fIeld tude because IL .
very small part of wia II proposes TO be- II u very IN
perfect aud IA iilad vita irn~m% The common Ia" can
not he codihei" The present Caiei judy uf TIE COM
arrang cement Of the law, would no. Teet emrr- cAcet
which bound to IRIS" IN tho administration OF Jus
tce." David NcAdau. Cnicf Justice OF III" Cty Court,
expressed the opinion uat to cnhdchs' III" custom
rules and maHins OF tho common law INTO an
cable. hut impossible" The views Of Supren Court
Justices Barrett Cullen, Brady. ndOn aud Nann ana
% Judr"s Beech, Var I1rs"u, Trunk, Nchrbas MeChc,
Day REYNOLDS aud Moore well AS of surrogate l"l-
Inns and other Judges uucpm promising IN their
Opposition to the FIrlt Code.
Tuning from the bench II may BE- fairly said mat the
work few Who no; jui-'s-p thoroughly pre-
parrs th-tu pass upon such question AZ thr olhll
labors tho Reporter OF the COuf; OF Appeals fro-
H. L. scEes, who has held that position FOR many
y-at. writes that he thinks The WORK VIZ tl"id hA' un-
aerak-n "impracjicehlr" and adds: " Tue work II
besi evidence al tui-. Read s.nn what Mr.
Edward II. Scuddcr " Tho tl"ld Code II male
uiate Inaccurate violation OF practical codhcN1u,
rtprte with legal ru- tOt nece~S ry To he chdte',
prr gndnt with ppporjuu"f for IA 'intcrprrlaluH ana
relic, for corrections Upuu Amendments bret i:On ~
own existence" Mr.. A. T. Man thinks 10 u hdH m pd-
cpr and altogether sir. r. L. Noud"rt r"b q" u
would introduce the utmost confusion INTO all admins
ration nf Justice Tho mischief done by that com soi
,yuutI b. incnlcilabl.." Ou"r eminent lawyers 40
ven stronger Ian sIIge express tucr condemnation
Of IA ,ps- measure. but ihr above viii be sni ient
10 rec general tenure of the opinions trdt ldh
rRlutvE published two years ago.
UeilcVe that there are many Ike my
s.lL particularly among the younger members
n, the bar, who have studied Mr. Fields wnrG
with great interest ami profound admira-
lion FOR compiler tho author OF O the most cA
traordu nary Productions uf times; hut VINO JON
with those whu not dwyrra iu tinAug thdl eminent
irrsit are most competent persons TO dcc1r the
gu~s whether that worf should 'e enacted INTO q"
sb.cluts % .tutr. judge aud ia~ycts Gu,.cd
above are correct ~ their opinions then Tho l"gtlTr
viii do one the ac- 81 wrong and inusc" I"
thr people state n II enrct The F"ld Cyh tde
Vrry -.-i.rtfu.y HL"RN W. NACNETt.
N,,c- lOrE, Jan. -, l0-O.