"It is to such law-makers as these that it is proposed to commit the whole body of our jurisprudence, in one vast statute, to be cut and carved, patched and plastered, from year to year, in a perpetual succession of change. It is not to be reasonably expected that after a few years' time, enough would remain of the polished and careful work of the original codifiers to be recognized by its authors. While the courts of justice, having no longer any voice or control in the development or growth of the law, will be reduced to the function of trying issues of fact, and ascertaining the meaning of doubtful

statutes.

"Much speculation has been brought to bear by ingenious writers on the prospective dangers of a republican system of government. The tendency to centralization, to executive usurpation, and toward military despotism, bave been set out in colors which have thus far, at least, been but very partially realized. The mischiefs to be apprehended from indiscriminate, reckless and corrupt legislation do not seem to have been anticipated. But experience is fast pointing out that the country can endure all its other dangers with less apprehension than the action of its federal and state legislation inspires. It is already manifest that the danger lies far less in the executive than in the legislative power. And it is not to be denied, meanwhile, that the wholesome checks which the framers of our constitution devised, and which constitute the only protection against arbitrary or unjustifiable enactments, have, by the growing reluctance of the courts to interfere with the legislative power, been suffered in no small measure to crumble away.

Legislatures in this country are steadily grasping larger powers, and approaching nearer and nearer to omnipotence. It would seem to me that the efforts of wise men should not be directed towards enlarging the sphere of legislation. To a certain extent it is necessary, and may be hoped to be useful and salutary. Its proper field is wide enough for the capacity of those concerned in it, and need not, indeed cannot, be

diminished. But surely it would not be judicious or safe to turn the whole law of the land into statutes, and to subject it to the dangerous process of their biennial revision.

"I believe that he who lives to see that result accomplished, as its advocates predict that it will be, will see also the decay of the administration of justice and of the profession to which we belong, and the gradual extinction of those principles of civil liberty which the history of the world shows to be inseparable from the common law."

CORTLANDT PARKER.

Dear Sir: At a meeting of the American Bar Association, which took place at Saratoga Springs, New York, in August, 1884, the appointment of a special committee was ordered to take into consideration the subject of delay and uncertainty in judicial administration, and to report upon the subject at the next annual meeting. The committee which was appointed was composed of David Dudley Field, of New York, chairman; John F. Dillon, of New York; Edward J. Phelps, of Vermont; James O. Broadhead, of Missouri; and Richard T. Merrick, of the District of Columbia. Before the next annual meeting of the Association, Mr. Phelps went to England as our Minister to that country; Mr. Broadhead went to France as one of the law agents of the United States touching the French Spoliation Claims; and Mr. Merrick died, so that the report of the committee was signed by two members only, Mr. Field and Mr. Dillon. Subsequently Mr. Broadhead communicated to the committee his unqualified adhesion to the report, and Mr. Phelps telegraphed his adhesion to all the recommendations of the report except that touching the codification of the law.

The report was presented in printed form to the American Bar Association at its annual meeting in August, 1885, was distributed among the members, was debated at great length, and the result was that most of its recommendations were adopted without change, excepting the following: "The law itself should be reduced as far as possible to the form of a statute." It was also ordered that five thousand copies of the

report, together with its appendix, be printed for distribution by the secretary. This appendix embraced numerous letters which had been received by the chairman of the committee in response to a number of questions embraced in a circular sent out by him.

The action finally taken by the Association was, that the whole subject be referred back to the committee; that the committee be reorganized by the president of the Association, and that it report upon the subject at the annual meeting of the Association to take place in 1886. The committee was subsequently reorganized by the president of the Association. so as to consist of the following members: David Dudley Field, of New York, chairman; John F. Dillon, of New York; George G. Wright, of Iowa; Cortlandt Parker, of New Jersey; and Seymour D. Thompson, of Missouri.

In order that the committee may be able to present to the Association such a report as that body has the right to expect, it is desirable that it should have the aid of the opinions and suggestions of the members of the Association and of the members of the profession at large upon certain subjects which it is designed to include in the report. These subjects are: 1. The Codification of the Laws; 2. The system of Trial by Jury; 3. The Relief of Appellate Courts; 4. Delays and Uncertainties in the Administration of Criminal Justice; 5. Legal Education and the Qualifications of the Bench and Bar; 6. The Judicial Office; 7. Champertous Engagements by Attorneys. The committee, therefore, beg that you will take time to consider and answer, as far as practicable, the following questions:

I. THE CODIFICATION OF THE LAWS.

1. In your opinion, is it practicable and desirable to reduce to the form of a statute the entire body of the general rules of the law of rights and remedies, so far as the same have been settled by the decisions of the courts?