The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1915-04-16

!. sioner,
"The said errors" says the attorney
general, consist in some instances IN
the omission of certain statutes and
acts which were included in the re-
ports of the code commissioners, other
instances being a change in some OF
the statutes as reported by the code
commissioners"
Irregular Procedure.
=, Continuing, t-e opinion says: eve
express no opinion as to tae legality
of the code generally, on account OF
this failure to have the code attached
to the act and filed in the Office OF tAe
secretary of state; but even if such
procedure does not affect the legality
of tie code, it seems to US that such
procedure is irregular, TO say the least.
The code, under the constitution and
laws OF this State, is the only general
statutory law of Il e State at the time
of It's adoption and surely record OF
this importance, in its entirety, should
sRbs among the records in the possession
# the proper State custodian. In
BE absence of the code referred to in
HE act of 1912, We are forced to the
cessity of referring to the reports
resolutions of South Carolina for
years 1911 and 1912, nereinabove
Eerred to-
Attorney GeSeral Peoples in his
opinion gives "a history of the code.
THE duties of tie code commissioner
re set forth an Il paper.
The opinion on the code resulted
from the receipt Of a letter from
Charleston questioning the correctness
of the law relating to the rights OF
national banks acting as trustees The
attorney general found tat the act
Tad been incorrectly printed in the
code.
The term of the code commissioner
expired in 1911 and an election was
held at tae 1911 session for commits
: sioner. The commissioner made his
hreport to the general assembly in 1912.
Ehe report was accepted by legisla-
committee and was ordered by
houses to be printed in the jour
information. In 1912 the gen.
assembly passed an act to de-
u e code submitted by the code
missioner to be the only general
tory law of the State and to pro-
for the publication of the same.
Commissioners Note.
he code commissioner appended
following notice to the act: "D,i>
was presented to the go.ernor OF
24ta day of February, A. D. 1912,
Ed was not returned by him to Il e
ouse in. which it originated within
shree days, bae general assembly be-
fag in session"
The attorney general says that in
his opinion there is nothing in tie
bet adopting the code, or any existing
Or subsequent statute or act, author
izing the code commissioner, the com
mittee or the publishers to make any
changes in the statutes as codified and
as reported to the general assembly in
be years 1911 and 1912, for it will
be noted from the act of 1912 tnat the
code as submitted by tie code commits
sioner of South Carolina (Which is
hereto attacted) is declared to be the
scode of laws of South Carolina
9 Continuing, the opinion says:
Certain errors have been noted in
! the code printed by the Niche com
pany, when compared with the two re-
ports of the code commissioners; said
4 errors consisting in some instances in
, the omission of certain statutes and
acts vi, ich were included in the re-
ports of the code commissioners, 9TH
Sr luSlduCSS DSAAS SA0L4SC LII SSAAAN
of the statutes as reported by the code
commissioners. In such cases it is
the opinion of this Office that the code
of laws as contained in the reports OF
the code commissioners for tie years
1911 and 1912 is the general statutory
law ofthe State, for these reports have
been so declared, and the code printed
by the Micnie company has not been
SO declared by legislative enactment
since the printing OF the same.
There is another question, it seems,
in connection with the code of 1912
which deserves the consideration of
the bench and bar, and that is Whether
the attempted adoption of the code by
the act of 1912 mas been done in a