FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   349   >>  
ers to make a book which correctly prints the laws, and all the laws, of the State in question. For one State, at least, such a compilation was made by a few industrious newspaper correspondents at Washington! The States and Territories that are in this cheerful condition are, as I have said: New York (in part) the Territory of Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana--that is to say, there has been no official revision since 1881 and everybody, in fact, uses a privately prepared digest--Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia (fourteen in all). Besides this, there are other States such as Wisconsin and Indiana, already mentioned, where there is no official _recent_ revision, so that everybody depends upon a private compilation, which is the only one procurable. So much for the authenticity of the books themselves which contain the laws upon which we all have to depend. Now, coming to the form of the laws. As I have already remarked, there is no committee on style. There is no attempt whatever made at scientific drafting. To give an example of what difference this may make in mere convenience, it is only a few weeks since, in Massachusetts, a chapter of law to protect the public against personal injuries caused by insolvent railway and street railway companies was drawn up by a good lawyer, and contained between twenty and thirty sections, or about three pages of print. It was brought to another lawyer, certainly no better lawyer, but a legislative expert, who got all that was desired into one section of five lines. There is no committee on style, there is no expert drafting. The case of the recent Massachusetts statute declaring the common law to be the common law, and therefore jeopardizing the very object of the statute, will not be forgotten (see p. 188 above). There are certain definite recommendations I should like to make. First, adopt the provision that "no statute shall be regarded as repealed unless mentioned as repealed, and when a law is amended, the whole law shall be printed as amended in full." This would acquaint the legislature with the law already existing, before they proceed to change it. Next provide that all laws shall be printed and published by a _State_ publisher and the authenticity of all revisions be duly guaranteed by their being submitted to the legislature and re-enacted _en bloc_, as is our practice with revisions in Massac
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   349   >>  



Top keywords:

statute

 

lawyer

 
revision
 

authenticity

 

official

 
mentioned
 
recent
 
expert
 

printed

 

amended


legislature
 

revisions

 

repealed

 
common
 
Massachusetts
 
railway
 
committee
 

drafting

 

compilation

 
States

Washington

 

Indiana

 

declaring

 

jeopardizing

 

object

 
forgotten
 

thirty

 

sections

 

brought

 

desired


definite

 

legislative

 
section
 

recommendations

 

published

 

publisher

 

provide

 
proceed
 

change

 

guaranteed


practice

 

Massac

 

enacted

 

submitted

 

existing

 
regarded
 
provision
 

question

 

acquaint

 

correctly