The Lewiston teller. (Lewiston, Idaho) 1900-1905, 1901-02-07

MISTAKES IN THE CODES
NEFOKI OF THE COMMISSION DISSECTED BY
HENRY z. JOHNSON-FLAWS AND ERRORS :.


oidte aCtlons ana allows costs, reason.
able attorneys fees. The original statute
providing for logger's liens gives attorney
fees for each person claiming lien. but
this section is omitted and the section
above given is inserted to cover a dis
| tinction between loggers and all others
forelosing liens with respect to attorney
fees, which would hav. been reserved.
The same is true with respect to the
record of liens to be kept by the recorder.
In the act authorizing this revision it
is provided that "after each section or
subdivision of the matter to be COM
prised IN the several volumes there shall
be as complete a reference to all de-
cisions interpreting, constituting or ap.
plying the law as may be, whether Of the
courts of Idaho or of the courts whereby
similar laws have been interpreted" An
examination of that part of the work
contemplated by the legislature in the
section just quoted, shows that had they
said "the reference to all decisions"
would be as complete" that part Of the
act would have been literally complied
with
AS illustrating the truth of this obser-
walton respecting the Idaho decisions
alone, the following reference to the Sec
tons of the several codes will be noted in
their order:
First, of the political code. Sec. ~
To this section a California case is cited
to the effect that the political code in
California was passed as one statute. 1t
would have been more to the point to
have cited two decisions of our own SUI
preme court holding that the "revised
statutes were adopted as whole at the
same time and took effect at the same
time" "the adoption of all of the
sections of the revised statutes being
either one act or simultaneous acts,
Sec. 24.-To this section is cited an
Idaho case holding that process may be
served on an Indian reservation, but
there is no notation of a reversal of that
case by the supreme court Of the United
States, and further notation of that
courts subsequent explanation of this
reversal.
Sec. 28-Here is cited decision from
Nebraska that has been reversed by the
supreme court of the United States.
Secs. as and 99-The Idaho cases cited
in these sections should have been men,
toned as being affirmed.by the supreme
court of the United States.
Those cases created intense excitement
in Idaho prior to their decision. They
grew out of q heated controversy, which
was the division of old Alturas county,
subsequently prolific of protracted litiga-
ton. The decision in the United States
supreme court has become leading case
and should have been noted.
Sec. 5o.-To this section is cited the
same Nebraska case heretofore noted as
having been reversed by the supreme
court of the United States.
Sec. S5-To this section cases are cited
holding that proposed constitutional
amendment must be entered in full on
the journals. The case cited was laterly
overruled by the supreme court of that
state, and is no longer authority there.
The court holding with what is consid-
cred the latter and better authority that a
mere identifying reference is sufficient.
Sec 773-On the form of an official
bond is here cited an early California
case. A decision of our own supreme
court to this point which would have
been Of value.
Sec. 3o4-To this section is cited an
Idaho decision but that it was affirmed
on appeal to the supreme court of the
United States and the statute cited and
applied does not appear.
Sec. 6l6-The decision of the United
States circuit court of appeals for this cir
cult disappearing the Idaho decision here
cited should have been noted as the con-
struction put upon this section of our in
terest statute ny that tribunal.
Sec. I9o-The Idaho decisions cited
here were indirectly affirmed by the su-
preme court of the United States and
should have SO appeared. These decis-
ions upon the old test oath statute, the
validity Of which was finally put at rest
by the United States supreme court are
matters Of common knowledge.
Sec. Io67-To this section is subioined
collation. of authorities on ''uavigable
streams" But the decision of the fed.
eral court of this district on the test oil
navigability is not referredlto.
Sec. I334.-A decision of our court
holding that this section applies only to
nronerty and NOT To nOll taxes ,uould