Amador ledger., 1905-04-07
A MESS IN GRAMMAR.
Code Commissioner Davis Found
Codes Reeking with Vile English.

The labors of code commissioner
John f. Davis in the matter of revis-
ing the codes had its principal result
III disclosing mass of liberties with
the English language taken by law
makers in the past. Of the three or
four hundred bills passed by the legis-
iature on the recommendation of code
commissioner Davis few related to
anything more serious than errors in
grammar. CommissionerDavis showed
that he overlooked nothing in the in
oongruous mass of stuff segregated in
to the penal and political codes. He
was extremely technical in some of
the revision work, transposing words,
real ranging sentences, making substi-
tutlons here and there. 1t would tax
the Ingenuity of the ordinary man
who tiatters himself that he knows
enough about good English to recog-
nlze it when he sees it to see in some
OF the changes a substantial reason
Ss.ne4efor. The alterations in only a
few cases undertake to change the
import of the statutes. On the whole
Mr.. Davis has no doubt made the
codes more pleasant reading. He has
cut out the jars that ignorant legis-
lators in the past put in the phrase
ology, and thus saved the refined SEN
sibilities of educated persons from
annoyance.
1t is doubtful, however, whether in
view of the cost of it the revision work
was worth while. With all their
shocking lapses of grammer the code
sections have stood the test of judic-
ial Interpretation and it is generally
conceded that the courts are technical
enough and would have shuddered at
the sight of some of the linguistic
blundeIs long ago if the meaning of
the language was obscured to any
perilous extent.
kering revision work is the danger
that it will open the way for deluge
of technical construction. Lawyers
will, as occasion offers, be sure to in
sist that the amended sections do not
mean what they did before. Mr..
Davis view was to remove the woolly
western flavor from the crudely
drawn sections but the technical law
yers are not likely to have it that way.
Thus wide field is opened for as
saults upon the revised sections.
People who have been looking over
the altered phraseology feel that if
the codes were in no worse condition
than the changes indicate there was
good deal of hollowness in the CRY
that preceded the creation of the
Commission on Revision. When the
politicians were scheming for the
new Offices the codes were represent
ed to be reeking with error, contra
dictions and blunders. This idea
prevailed and commission of three
was established which was after sew
eral years reduced to one, The peo-
pie have paid handsomely but, per-
haps, have no complaint now that
they have two immaculate code sets,
trimmed and fitted to the queen 8
taste.
The suggestion has been made that
it would be economical to have a
State Grammarian whose duty it
would be to set all verbs on their
pins and see that every "i'' carried
its. respective dot before the printing
of the Legislative enactments in the
text books. Grammariaps do not
come as high as commissioners and
they are easier to dispose OF when
their day of usefulness is over. Not
the driest of them could appear more
Tidiculously technical tbsn Mr. Davis.
Perhaps better protection against
the uncouth grammar in our laws
would be test requiring men who
assume to build laws to be able to
write the English language. This
would decimate sadly The ranks of
lawmakers but it would also obviate
all necessity for State Censor of
the woes of illiteracy.