Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1898-12-14
Lawmakers and Code Compilers.

J ana the lnlOX1CallCn sometime
causes an exuberance Of legisla
ton, The recurring assembling
Of the legislative bodies Of all com
nonweaiths regardless of the pub
lie demand, Tor new statutes fo
specific purposes engenders all eX
ACCENTED idea of the Importance o
lawmakers generally and especially
in the estimation Of these legisla
{ rs themselves. i is easy to con
s'ruc the theory of the regular
calling Of Laws making bodies IL
mean 1t public demand for multi
piled statutory enactment. This
mi9c2uceptiou inspires practice
hat eudangers public interests.
The Idaho code is a confused
mass. Though the state is new
and the organic law was simple,
consistent and all efficient, but the
ignorance of the principles of civil
/ government on the part of law
makers and the prevailing miscon-
ception of tie public duties of
! legislators have given this state
the tumble of enactments we now
call a code.
None can dispute the fact that a
public demand exists for an intelli-
sibie compilation of Idaho laws.
The courts have pointed out the
defects. 1t does not follow, how
ever, that a state code commits
sion should be formed. The legis-
lature Itself can we'll employ the
60 days Of the approaching BIZ
enn'al session i'll the compilation
Of code system, i'll legalizine
tile bNunders Of the other state
| leg islatures. The legislature with
the power to employ competent
a assistance is the only logical code
commission for the state of Idaho
In this new state only the blun-
/ dtrs of four sessions of the legisla.
| ture ere demanding revision and
correction. The precedent code
commission is not consistent with
popular government. The powers
delegated are only indirectly from
the people themselves. In theory
the work of code commission is
clerical, i'll practice it is largely
legislative. The existing laws are
tie wool Of a state code but
DUTY q faint color of the popular
enactmeEts from which the revised
statutory provisions were made,
survives modern revision.
The chief objection to a code
commia sion of the usual order is
the cTccsa Of expenditure. The
work Of such commission is only
foundation for the future structure
F., Of jurisprudence for present guild
ance. The best work Of such a
commission would be jumbled up
by every future legislature as the
organic law Of the state now is,
after the political storms of four
campaigns, The work of code
commissions are theoretically only
foundations for legislative bodies
to build The super stru>tu.~ -pon
but like anchor ice these founda-
tons are often broken up by the
political storms that ceutralize II,
state legislatures.
In view of the fact that the su.
preme court has not left a con
sistent code after two years of tests
in the constitutional crucible, the
manifest requirement at this time
Is careful legislative work of cor.
ccction, II some manifest blum.
dcrs are corrected and our laws are
localized by the Fifth session o.
the state legislature we can vel
dispense with the services of the
proposed Idaho code commission
TIL another series of statutory
bluaders are imposed upon lis. II
fact the work Of the coming session
. viii be in the line of code reforma.
ion. This condition is forced by
work OF the supreme court. A code
commission would have little to dc
after the Fifth Legislature performs
well the duties of the session.
S.~-.-.-s@~~n~