FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323  
324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   >>   >|  
trict of Columbia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New York (partially), North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin (sixteen States) have any official revision or "General Laws"; that is to say, one or more volumes containing the complete mass of legislation, up to the time of their issue, formally enacted by the legislature. A number of other States have what are called "authorized revisions" or authorized editions of the law. This phrase I use to mean a codification by one or more men (usually a commission of three) who are duly appointed for the purpose, under a valid act of the State legislature, but whose compilation, when made, is never in form adopted by the legislature itself. Leaving out the constitutional question whether such a book is in any sense law at all--for in all probability no legislature can delegate to any three gentlemen the power to make laws, even one law, much more all the laws of the State--leaving out the constitutional question. It is very doubtful how far such compilations are reliable, although printed in a book said to be authorized and official, and held out to the public as such. That is to say, if the real law, as originally enacted, differs in any sense or meaning from the law as set forth in this so-called "authorized publication," the latter will have no validity. Indeed, some States say this expressly. They provide that these compilations, although authorized, are only admissible _in evidence_ of what the statutes of the State really are--that is to say, only valid if uncontradicted. It was impossible to correspond with all the States upon this point--if, indeed, I could have got opinions from their respective supreme courts, for no other opinion would be of any value. The compilation of the State of Arkansas says, somewhere near its title-page, that it is "approved by Sam W. Williams." It does not appear who Sam W. Williams is, what authority he had to approve it, or whether his approval gave to the laws contained in that bulky volume any increased validity. This is a typical example of the "authorized" revision, and this is the state of things that exists in such important States as Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming (twenty in all). Before leavin
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323  
324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

authorized

 

States

 

legislature

 

called

 
compilation
 

Williams

 

question

 

validity

 
Arkansas
 

Dakota


Carolina
 
official
 

revision

 

constitutional

 

compilations

 

enacted

 

statutes

 

Indeed

 

evidence

 

expressly


provide
 

admissible

 

uncontradicted

 

opinions

 

respective

 

correspond

 
supreme
 
opinion
 

impossible

 
courts

Kansas

 

Missouri

 
Hawaii
 

Florida

 

exists

 
important
 
California
 

Colorado

 

Nebraska

 

Nevada


Wyoming

 

twenty

 

Before

 
leavin
 

Virginia

 
Jersey
 

Mexico

 

Oregon

 

Tennessee

 
things