The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1910-01-13
S0LONST TAKENOTICE

RADICAL CHANGES IN OHIO CODE
MAY CAUSE ITS RE-
LECTION.
BEATTY WOULD HURRY PROBING
Investigation Of state Department
Will Be Begun This Week-Repub
Iieans Offer No Interference to Pro
posed Inquiry.
Columbus. GA few hours consid
Grafton of the report of the state cod
flying commission by legislators, wal
sufficient to arouse a sentiment that
unless it is appeased by explanations
Of the ccdifiers, may end in the offer
ing of a resolution to reject it. Mem
bers of the subcommittee say they
found thousands of phrases had beer
changed by the omission of words, sale
to be redundant, and that hundreds o
sections had been rearranged. Anon:
house members, where the most dis
satisfaction over the report seemed II
be, the sentiment was that the codi
iiers had not only exceeded their pow
ers by actually legislating, but hat
also been too keen in drawing fine
distinctions and had "split hairs" tot
fine.
On the other hand, reports were cir
culated that the law book agents
whose business would be seriously in
jured by the proposed printing of the
code by the state, had stirred up some
of the agitation against it.
Some legislators recalled the expen
sive litigation that has resulted ovel
improper punctuation of statutes anC
the difficulties judges have encounter
ed to ascertain the meaning of new
sections changed by the mere rear
rangements of words and omission 0
them.
Keen at Seeming Flaws.
They realize lawyers are mighty
keen at scenting flaws and that the!
will go over the new code with a fine
tooth comb to discover opportunitie;
to get new constructions of statutes
in the courts. These say that if the
courts are swamped with litigation
over the adoption Of the code, they
will be the most "cussed" citizens O.
Ohio for several years, for they, in
stead of the codifiers, will be held re
SpOnsible. Rather than that such {
situation should arise, one represen
tatiye said he preferred to reject the
code report and allow the statutes t.
remain as they are, NOTWITHSTANDING
$76,69S.74 has been spent by the statC
in having the codification report com
piled.
This would not be establishing a pre-
cedent, it is said, as the federal gov
crnment rejected similar repor
after several eminent lawyers haC
spent many years compiling it at grea
expense.
Campbell to Defend.
EX-Gov. James E. Campbell, Of the
codifying commission, just as strongly
declared that the report did not change
the meaning of single statute. He
declared representatives jumped a
conclusions too quickly.
Il have spent more than three years
with my colleagues, compiling the code
report, and l am positive that the
meaning of a single statute has moi
been changed" said Gov. Campbell
1T was big task for us in three
years, and it is a monumental one fol-
the legislators to intelligently review
in three weeks.
Instead of jumping at conclusions
after a three hours consideration oil
the report, legislators should ask the
codifiers to explain changes and re
arrangements. The services of mem
bers of the commission are always al
the disposal of the subcommittee, and
am sure We can satisfactorily eX
plain away all alleged discrepancies
that arise"
Mconey's Criticism.
Several representative were of g
differeHt opinion. From what exam
ination l have made of the report
believe the codiflers have made many
changes which may later cause litiga
tion," said Speaker Mooney. "Of the
changes made in 70 per cent of the
statutes, at least 80 per cent of them
were immaterial."
"The codifiers actually legislateG
right and left" declared Representa-
tive Woods Many vital changes have
been made in almost every section
The codifiers have failed to take out
grossly unconstitutional statutes anG
others unconstitutional by implication
as result of court decisions"
"Verbal changes dot every section,
bu-N AkSpI OhoAhAdAus ~ IL
a serious question whether the mean
ing Of large number of sections was
not vitally changed as construed by
the courts"
Sections Left Out.
In reading proof it was discovered
by representatives that several stat
utes had apparently been left out
Gov. Campbell said it was frequently
necessary to take sections from one
chapter and put them in another
where they belonged, and that an in
dex in the back of the report would
show what had been done with the al
legged omitted sections. The codifiers
have presented only the last amend
ments made to statutes in their re
port and have dropped intervening
ones. This caused some dissatisfac