The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-10-12
BULLA IS NOT SURPRISED.
Says Governor and Present Gods
Commission B1undered.

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1.-THE decision
Of the Supreme Court annulling the re-
vised Code of Civil Procedure has caused
CONSERVATION among members of the 10
cal bar. General tombstone Jones, AS
sistant District Attorney, said to-day:
I am of the opinion that the sweeping de-
cision of the State Supreme Court is applicable
to the Penal Code and will have the effect OF
rendering null and void the several amendments
to the Penal Code made by the Code Commits
sion.
Judge J. w. Mckinley does not believe
that convictions will be affected. George
that the decision had surprised and aston
ished him. Senator Robert N. Bulla, who
preceded Mr.. Denis on the commission,
said:
am not at all surprised at the decision. In
deed should have been astonished had the
Supreme Court arrived at any other conclusion.
The first act of the so-called commission OF
1897 was to determine in what form the leg1s-
lation necessary for the revision of the codes
should be introduced We then satisfied our
selves that the only safe course to pursue was
to introduce each code as a separate bill, re-
printing the same in full and showing in the
body thereof every amendment suggested by
the commission. In pursuance of this plan.
we revised three of the four codes during our
incumbency. which extended over period Of
a little more than two years, and at the ses-
sion of the Legislature in 1899 we introduced
the Civil Code as amended by US. The bill as
5 ter not }b qRoe ey tff that
sion the commission continued its labors along
the same lines until It's retirement ana the
appointment of it's successors by Governor
Gage during the summer of 1899. AS before
stated at the time vacated the office we
had completed three of the four codes.
When successors were appointed, for rea-
sons which doubtless were satisfactory to them
the work of their predecessors was discarded
and new plan of procedure adopted-that of
suggesting amendments to separate sections of
the various codes and introducing a fragmen-
tary bill, not re-enacting the entire codes.
The object of the commission doubtless was to
save the expense to the State Of reprinting
these sections of the codes which were not to
be changed in the revision. but the result,
determined by the decision of the Supreme
Court mas proved most disastrous and far
expensive than If the commission of 1899 had
pursued the same plan adopted by that of
1897: and the uncertainty, inconvenience and
hardship which will follow the decision of the
Supreme Court declaring their labors unconsti-
tutional would have been avoided.
OF course good lawyers honestly differ in
such matters but the mistake of Judgment on
the part of the present commissioners irr-adopt-
ing their plan of amendments, and of the Gov
ernor in ratifying their unconstitutional meth
dds Is certainly most unfortunate for litigants
and the people generally. What can be done
to remedy the evil? Nothing but await the
meeting of the next session of the Legislature
and then introduce each code separate bill,
showing it's face every amendment suggested
by the commission. OF course this will be ex-
pensve and probably will cost the State in the
neighborhood of another 100000, but 1 no
other way out of the predcament if code
vision is become accomplished fact.