St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-27

&c NNN@@AV
| provide a code that would be valuable,
His objection to the West bill is that
| 1T would defeat the purpose of revi7
| sion. 1t would make the matter a pri-
| yate enterprise. 1t names a supervisor
| who shall have power to appoint law
| yers to do the work, and would not
leave the revision to the supreme
| court. 1t would enable the revision to
be made in the name of an individual.
| 1t would enable the revisor to employ
| lawyers who would be mere clerks. 1t
| makes no limit as to price and would
| leave lawyers at the mercy of the pub
Usher as to price. 1t does not require
| revision within limited time 1t
| does not, as the Littleton bill, provide
| for annexation as well as revision.
1t leaves no limit as to the size of the
book. 1t would result in defeating re-
vision. The bill would be in the I'M
| terest of Mr.. West or the supervisor,
and would make the bar the supreme
| court and others the servants of the
revisor. Mr.. West is not lawyer and
should not be placed in control of the
revision.
Senator Spencer asked what was
| thought of the new West revision.
Judge Smith said it was good in many
| respects, but it has errors, it is poorly
| indexed and brings together a mass of
| matter that should be revised and cod
| flied. 1t does not harmonic conflict
| ing sections.
| Horatio West said the senate bill is
al 70 int
ago and passed the senate. He said
/, the reason he had not used his own
name in the bill is because he thought
| 1t better to have supervisor named.
No time to complete the work was
| mentioned, because of the work just
| completed, which had required two
! years work by two men. He spoke OF
| the slow work of revision experienced
| by other states under commissions.
He said his company has made revis-
| ions that have not cost the state any
| thing. He spoke Of the means for cheap
and efficient work afforded by his COM
pany, and claimed this to be an ad-
vantage in revision. If his company
does the revision the Legislature could
look at proof sheets during a session
and after corrections the books could
be published. He claimed that no 9TH
er concern could do this. He had no;
doubt there is need Of revision, and he
thought if it was decided upon his
company is in a position to give the
best and cheapest revision.
Charles Ames, of the West Publishl
ing company supplemented the speech
of Mr.. West, and claimed their CONF
pany could save the state $4,000 If
the state would agree to take 5000
copies of the revision the company
could sell the annotated work at $6 or
for 81 without annexation. ]
Hon. Harry Horn said that the reviss
ion by the state would not be a BUST.
ness enterprise. He said that conf
pflation is not wanted; that has BEEN
had, but that a. revision is needed. He
said the West company could afford
a compilation, but are not fitted to
make a revision. The bar wants al
good work by competent lawyers, ap-
pointed by the supreme court direct.
|, The West company could do. the me-
/ chanical work 1t would be a. business
by them. His view was that if a re4-
vision could not be had by skilled and;
trained lawyers in whom the bar has
confidence, it would be better to leave
1t alone. A revision is badly needed,
and not such work as could be pre-.
pared by mere publishing company.
Mr.. Cairns spoke in favor of the Lit
Teton bill. He said it is hard to work,
the legislature up to the point of re-
vision that is needed. not only by the
lawyers, but by the citizens as well.
He said revision was defeated two
years ago by the West company, and
that is, in his view, the purpose of the
present West bill. He asserted that
the West bill would not pass the
house.
Mr.. West stated that his company
would select such lawyers as the SUI
preme court would select under the
other bill, and his company could Sc
/ cure such services cheaper than the
state could.
Representative Littleton said the SUI
preme court is in favor of revision,
and will do all that can be done to ac-
complish the work. He declared it a
shame that the state has gone thirty
years without a revision. The work
should not be longer delayed on the
plea of poverty The people are tired
of the present conglomerated condi-
ton of the laws. All the lawyers are
in favor of revision, and are afraid of
the laws as they are mixed up at pres
ent.