Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-10-14
DIS TRICT LA VS..
Repeated Efforts Made to Have Them
Codifed.

Codifed.
THE ATTEMPTS AT LEGISLATION,
The Code Prepared Years Ago by
Judge Cranch. +"
IN THE PRESENT CONGRESS.
1t has been said that the laws OF the Dis
trict Of Columbia resemble those Of the Medes
and Persians-they never change For more
than hundred years statutes, coming down
from the time Of King Edward, have re-
NAMED upon the books immune from the
pruning hook OF the codiher or the grating
khiIe OF the revtser. 1t Is true that Oft
repeated attempts have been made to codffy
ana revise the laws, but up to the present
time the efforts have been unsuccessful by
lacking the final sanction OF Congress, nee
essary to give the codification the force of
law.
AS early as 1916 the necessity of codifica-
ton Of laws affecting the District was rec
osmzeo. by act Of Congress, approved
April e. 1916. the judges of the Circuit Court
OF the District and the attorney for the Dis
trict were authorized to prepare a code of
Jurisprudence. Two years later Judge Wlll-
lam Cranch reported the codincation to Con-
gress. nav1ng performed the bulk Of the
work himself. In submitting the work he
said:
In preparing q substitute for existing
stautute law II was necessary. II possible, to
ascertain what that law was. This was not
All easy TASK BY act Of Congress of Feb
ruary Il. 1901. the laws Of Virginia, as they
then existed were to remain in force in that
part OF the District which was coded by
virginia, and the laws OF Maryland in that
part ceoed Dy Maryland. The laws thus
adopted consisted OF so much Of the common
law OF England as was applicable to the
situation in this country; OF the bills of
rights. constitution and statutes OF Mary
land ana Virginia modified by the Consti-
tuition and laws Of the United States, and
also I'm regard to that part OF the District
OF Columbia which was coded by Maryland),
OF such OF the English statutes AZ existed
at the time of the first emigration to Mary.
land, and which by experience had been
found applicable to the local and other cir
cumstances. and Of such others as had been
since made IN England or Great Britain and
had been introduced used and practiced by
courts OF law and equity Of that state
To ascertain therefore what was the ex-
listing statute law 1t was necessary to know
what statutes Of England enacted before
the first emigration to Maryland had by ex-
perience been found applicable to the local
and other circumstances Of the country and
what statutes since made in England or
Great Britain had been introduced. used
and practiced by the courts Of law or equity
in that state and also what Of those stat
utes had been expressly re-enacted by. the
state OF Virginia. To obtain this knowledge
with as much certainty as the nature of the
case would permit IL nv RI ow-
anime infinitely the English and British
statutes and compare them with the stat
utes enacted by Virginia and Maryland.
From these three systems Of statutes to
select such as were most important and best
adapted to the circumstances OF the Dis-
trict. to supply such defects as were dis
covered and to combine the whole into one
code required more elaboration and occu-
pied more time than was anticipated" 4t-
Judge Cranch's Qualification. '.''9
Notwithstanding these difficulties Judge
Cranch did furnish codlfication Of laws.
and they were submitted to Congress. but
that was the end OF the matter. and no
steps were taken to adopt the codifcation
as the law Of the land. 10 @.a
The operation Of the laws Of Virginia over
the District of Columbia referred to above
ceased when that portion Of the District
which had been coded by the old dominion
was retroceded.
In 1923 Samuel Burch, acting under an act
Of council of October Is. 1921. prepared q
digest OF the corporation laws OF Washing
ton. with an appendix containing the laws
Of the United States relating to the District.
In 1881 William H. Dayiss prepared q di-
gest of the acts Of Congress In relation to
the District from July 16. 1870. to March 4.
1881, and of the acts Of the legislatures Of
Maryland and Virginia relating to the Dis
trict. ec. pH
In 1850 M Hale in presenting to the SEM.
ate petition Of citizens Of the District for
a reorganization of the judiciary said: This
District has UNNECESSARILY the worst ad-
ministration Of justice that is to be found
in the United States"
In 1855 NJ. Thompson Of the local bar pre-
trict which passed into third edition. but
no action was taken by Congress upon 1t.
the undertaking having been OF his own
volition.
A Code Voted Down.
March 3. 1855. Congress passed an act.
the Trainer Of which was Henry May. then
in Congress, but formerly a citizen Of the
District. authorizing a commission to ire
vise simplify, digest and codify the laws
of said District and also rules and princi-
pies of practice, Of pleading. Of evidence
and conveyancing." Robert Ould and Will
liam b. B. Cross were appointed to 40 this
work and completed it in 1857. Their re-
port says: T.. q, as
THE laws, which 1t was the duty Of the
commission to revise and simplify, con-
sisted in the language of the Maryland
decla ration OF rights. of such of the Eng
llsh statutes as existed at the time Of the
first emigration to Maryland. &C.; also of
the declaration Of rights. constitution and
statutes of Maryland passed prior to Feb
ruary "a. 1901. as modified by the Constitu-
ton and laws Of the United States. Our
statute laws thus flowing from three dis
tinct sources, Is almost necessarily incon-
sistent in many of it's parts. Much of 1t IL
also obsolete. Much of it Is disfgured by
the prejudices Of past age. In many
cases the circumstances which called forth
the statute have since passed away or been
materially changed. i..'.
But perhaps the best founded complaint
of all is the entire absence Of any statutory
provisions In relation to matters which, in
the progress OF time and development Of So
ciety. have been made the subject Of legis-
lation In almost every other civilized COM
munity."
1t was provided by the law which author
lied the preparation of this code that 1t
should be submitted to an election held by
citizens Of the District to determine its
ratification or rejection. Accordingly Pres
ident Buchanan issued proclamation for
an election to be held February Is. 1868 The
adoption of the code was voted down. 3.110
votes being cast against the code and only
LBS in favor Of 1t. President Buchanan
certified the result Of the election to Con-
gress and there the matter rested.
Other Attempts.