Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T07:33:41.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Statutory Revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

John Bell Sanborn
John Bell Sanborn*
Affiliation:
Madison, Wis.
Get access

Extract

Codification was for many years a word to provoke discussion in any gathering of American lawyers. The idea of a simple and complete code, with which the name of Bentham is chiefly associated, received great favor in this country, although the efforts to put into practice Benthamic theories were seldom even partially successful. During recent years, however, we hear little of codification. The interest of the bar and of political scientists in this theory has apparently greatly waned.

The relative merits of the common law and a code are not within our present field of discussion. The literature upon the subject would probably fill many volumes. I do not even venture an opinion whether the demerits of the code are sufficient to account for its abandonment. I do not believe, however, that the subject was really settled upon its merits or that if similar conditions to those existing twenty-five years ago were to return we should not have the discussion again revived. Probably the most powerful factor in the elimination of this idea has been the rapid increase in the written law. The question is now not whether we shall codify the unwritten law but whether we shall reduce to the form of a partial code the statutes already existing, and if so, how this result can best be accomplished. We cannot codify the unwritten law until we codify the written law.

Type
Papers and Discussions
Information
Proceedings of the American Political Science Association , Volume 4: Fourth Annual Meeting , December 1908 , pp. 113 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Missouri Const., 1875, art. iv, sec. 41; South Carolina Const., 1868, art. v, sec. 3, 1895, art. vi, sec. 5; Oklahoma Const., art. v, sec. 43.2

2 Texas Const., 1845, art. vii, sec. 16; ibid., 1866, art. vii, sec. 16; ibid., 1869, art. xii, sec. 35.

3 Texas Const., 1876, art. iii, sec. 43.

4 Michigan Const., 1850, art. xviii, sec. 15.

5 The following table gives the revisions and official compilations in the various States during recent years. No effort has been made to cover in all cases the period prior to 1850. It has been sometimes difficult to determine just what class different collections of statutes belong to but it is believed that the figures are substantially accurate. The dates show codes or revisions unless otherwise indicated:

Alabama: 1852, 1867, 1877, 1887, 1897.

Arkansas: 1858 (com.), 1874 (com.), 1884 (com.), 1894 (com.), 1904 (com.).

California: 1872.

Colorado: 1883 (com.).

Connecticut: 1849, 1854 (com.), 1866, 1875, 1888, 1902.

Delaware: 1852, 1874 (com.).

Florida: 1881 (com.), 1892, 1906.

Georgia: 1860, 1873 (com.), 1882 (com.), 1895.

Idaho: 1901 (com.).

Illinois: 1826, 1832, 1874.

Indiana: 1843, 1852 (com.), 1881 (com.), 1894 (com.).

Iowa: 1851, 1860 (com.), 1873, 1897.

Kansas: 1855, 1862 (com.), 1868, 1889 (com.), 1897 (com.), 1901 (com.).

Kentucky: 1852, 1873.

Louisiana: 1870.

Maine: 1841, 1857, 1871, 1884, 1904.

Maryland: 1860, 1878 (com.), 1888 (com.), 1904 (com.).

Massachusetts: 1836, 1860, 1882, 1902.

Minnesota: 1866, 1878 (com.), 1905.

Mississippi: 1857, 1871, 1880, 1892, 1906.

Missouri: Every ten years by constitution.

Montana: 1895.

Nebraska: 1866, 1873 (com.), 1881 (com.), 1887 (com.), and biennially since.

Nevada: 1873 (com.), 1885 (com.).

New Hampshire: 1843, 1853 (com.), 1867, 1878, 1891.

New Jersey: 1875, 1896.

New York: 1830.

North Carolina: 1837, 1854, 1873 (com.), 1883 (com.), 1905.

North Dakota: 1895 (com.), 1899 (com.), 1905 (com.).

Ohio: 1880.

Oklahoma: Every ten years by constitution.

Oregon: 1887 (com.), 1901 (com.).

Rhode Island: 1844, 1857, 1872, 1882, 1896, 1905 (partial).

South Carolina: Every ten years by constitution.

South Dakota: 1903.

Tennessee: 1858, 1884, 1896 (com.).

Texas: 1879, 1895.

Utah: 1898.

Vermont: 1850 (com.), 1862, 1880, 1894.

Virginia: 1849, 1860 (com.), 1873 (com.), 1887, 1904 (com.).

Washington: 1891 (com.).

West Virginia: 1868.

Wisconsin: 1849, 1858, 1873 (com.), 1878, 1889 (com.), 1898.

Wyoming: 1887, 1899 (com.).

6 See, Ilbert, Legislative Methods and Forms, ch. 4.

7 14 Stats, at Large, 74; U. S. Rev. Stats. (2d ed.), p. 1089.

8 19 Stats, at Large, 268, 20 id. 27; U. S. Rev. Stats. (2d ed.), pp. 1092-93.

9 30 Stats, at Large, 58.

10 Ibid., 1116.

11 31 Ibid., 1181.

12 31 Ibid.

13 See Ilbert, , Legislative Methods and Forms, 118 Google Scholar.

14 31 Stats, at Large 1181.

15 Laws, 1905, ch. 362, sec. 23; see. 1797–23 Wisconsin Supp.

16 Laws, 1907, ch. 205.

17 American Bar Association Report, 1886, 50.

18 See Ilbert, Legislative Methods and Fornis, ch. 7.