The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-01-29
STATUTE REVISION
IS COSTLY LABOR
Present Movement Recalls
Heavy Expense of Previ-
Gus Work of Kind.

In view Of the steps which are to
be taken to make provision at this
session Of the general assembly for
the revision Of the General Statutes
OF the state the subject is quite often
referred to in legislative and legal
circles. The last revision was au-
thori1ed at the session of 1901 and,
the revision that is in use now is
known as the Revision of 1902" Tt
is generally understood that once in
fourteen years it is necessary to re-
wise the statutes Of the state and to
make compilation of the laws pass
ed at the intervening sessions. There
was a bill before the general assembly
at the last session for the revision,
but it shared the fate of hundreds
Of other measures which were not
even considered owing to the want
Of time.
Those who are considering the mat
ter are giving particular attention to
the expense of revising the statutes.
The revision Of 1902 was the most ex-
pensiye in the history of the state.
The reyisers were Donald II. Warner,
Henry c. White, Gardiner Greene,
William A. king, James P. Andrews
and Michael Kenealy. The expense
OF this revision reached the enormous
sum of $68, 039.94. The previous re-
vision of 1888 cost $23,1000,. include
ing $1,000 for indexing thew oIurne.
the revision of 1888, was made up of
R. Jay Walsh, George p. Mclean, -Au-
gustus II. F7enn,-J. A. Hovey and E. D.
CundeI. Mr.. Cundel1, who was from
Wfndham ounty, died about a month
after his appointment, and his estate
rendered. The revision Of 1875 cost
$17,814.2S, and the revisers were Da-
vid b. Booth. p. c. Mathers Simeon
E. Baldwin. George C.. Woodruff. and
j. S. Turel It will thus be seen
that the revision of 1902 cost about
$2s, 200 more than the total cost Of
the two previous revisfons
1t is believed that the question of
expense will receive more attention
than has ever before been given to
it. The conditions of the state treas
ury makes this attention impera-
lively necessary.
Last Revision Expensive.
1t is recalled that when the last
revision was provided for at the ses-
sion of 1901 the sum allowed for
the compensation of the members OF
the Commission was $4,000, or So
900 apiece. At the subsequent SEES
sion in 1903 the commission asked
amount Of $4,000. The request
caused some surprise, and it was
with some difficulty that even a com
promise report was obtained from
the committee on appropriations.
The senate chairman of the com
Pattison of ,Simsbury and the house
chairman was Everett J. Lake, af-
terward acknowledgements Mem
bers of the commission appeared be-
fore the committee in support of
the bill to allow each of the six S.
600 extra. They found it no easy
matter to eonvinceN Senator Pattison
flfN 10 7I1Sf Too ra@f 17eaiTs ole the
senator took the position that the
revisers had undertaken the work on
the expressed understanding that
their compensation would not be
more than 100000 and that. accord
ing to amendment "a of the .consti-
tuition Of the state, they could not
be paid a penny more without violat-
ing the constitution Finally, the
matter was compromised by a, bill
which left it to a judge of the supe-
rior court to determined if the extra
compensation should be paid. The
revisers3 brought the matter before
| the late Chief Justice F'red~B. Hall,
who was then a superior court Judge.
Charles Phelps of Rockville was at
torney-general. He appea red in
opposition to the claim.
Allowed.
Judge Hall allowed the claim, and
each Of the revisers received the ad-
ditioHa1 $4,000. making $4,000 or
| $4,000 in all as compensation.
The experience with the revision
| of 1902 is not forgotten. 1t has been
suggested that an arrangement could
be made with the faculty of Yale
Law. school to take charge of the
revision and that it could be done
| under the supervision of. the faculty
| at an expense that would not exceed
$4,000. The work would be done
scientifically if it were entrusted te
the faculty of the law school. Mem
| bers of the state bar association are
strongly in favor of this proposition
and it would not be a surprise if the
I general assembly adopted the
plan. It has also been suggested
that the revision could be left tt
! the state referees. 1t is said tTa1
some of them have expressed a will
| i1sness to undertake the work