prompt us to make this suggestion: first, the proposed enactment of two codes, one for courts of record, and one for inferior courts not of record. But by the practice which has existed many years, a mechanic's lien may be foreclosed in either court. It would therefore be inconsistent to include foreclosure of mechanics' liens in the Code of Civil Procedure only; nor should it be included only in the Justices Code. We therefore propose to transfer it to the Lien Law. Another reason is that until 1897 the practice relative to the foreclosure of mechanics' liens was combined with the statute providing for the lien. Further observation leads us to think that it will be more convenient to have the practice relative to foreclosure of mechanics' liens in the statute providing for the lien, so that a lawyer will have the whole subject together in one law. He will necessarily be obliged to resort to the Code of Civil Procedure for the law relating to practice generally, but so far as the special provisions are concerned, he will find them conveniently arranged in the law which provides for the creation of the lien. The Lien Law of 1897 codified the law relative to artisans' liens, and it seems to us only logical that under the circumstances we should transfer to the Lien Law the sections of the Code relative to the foreclosure of artisans' liens. If our plan be adopted, the Lien Law will contain the substantive law, and the procedure relative to mechanics' and artisans' liens and liens on vessels. We have retained in the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions of the former code relative to special actions, such as ejectment, partition, foreclosure, replevin, dower, waste, corporations, etc., with some special provisions, such as appointment of committee of an incompetent person, and the mortgage or sale of his real estate; and also various writs. The subject of summary proceedings has been transferred to the Justices Code, principally for the reason that these proceedings are usually taken in an inferior court. We have also concluded to propose a separate jury law. This subject was included in the Judiciary Law of 1898 and 1899, but the subject has become so large and important as to justify a sepa rate statute. This subject was rewritten for the Judiciary Law, submitted in 1898, and the Legislature of 1899, by chapter 441, passed substantially as prepared by us that part of it relating to commissioners of jurors. We have included that statute in the proposed bill. This subject is not directly related to procedure, and we think has no proper place in a practice code. Several thousand local officers throughout the State are interested in the administration of this branch of the law, in the preparation of jury lists, and we think a separate statute will be found more convenient. Some discussion has arisen concerning the location of the statute of limitations. It is applicable to all courts and should therefore, we think, be contained in a separate statute or else included in a general statute applicable to all courts. We included it in the proposed Judiciary Law in 1898 and also in 1899; but several eminent judges have suggested the propriety of making it an independent statute. We have concluded to submit it in the alternative; that is, it will be included again in the Judiciary Law submitted to the Legislature at this session, and will also be submitted in an independent bill. We have taken the same course with reference to the subject of evidence, as already indicated in connection with the statute of limitations. That is, we have taken the subject of evidence formerly included in the proposed Judiciary Law, and have prepared an independent bill on this subject, containing one hundred sections; but the subject will also be included as heretofore in the Judiciary Law. The alternative presentation of these two subjects will enable the Legislature to readily dispose of them, and if the independent statutes are preferred, the Judiciary Law can be very readily modified, by omitting the sections relating to these subjects. The subject of receivers was rewritten by this Commission and submitted to the Legislature in an independent bill in 1898. This subject is so intimately connected with procedure that we think it should be included in the Code. It will therefore be found in an appropriate place in this bill. The plan of code revision will include the following general laws or codes. Some parts of them are included in the present Code of Civil Procedure, and other parts are found in general statutes. The Naturalization Law. The Drainage Law. The Insolvent Debtors' Law. The Condemnation Law. The Jury Law. The Evidence Law. The Statute of Limitations. The Judiciary Law. The Justices' Code. The Surrogates Code. The Code of Civil Procedure. In addition to these separate statutes, about fifty sections will be taken from the Code of Civil Procedure and included in the Prison Law. These sections relate to civil prisoners and incidental matters. The special provisions relating to the City Court of New York will be included in the New York Consolidation Act. Many of these sections are already in that statute, as well as in the code, and it is believed that for the sake of convenience they should be in one statute only, and that it is not necessary to continue them in the code. In rearranging the code, we have followed our general plan of articles, instead of sub-chapters and titles, and have also, as in other general laws, left blanks between articles for the addition of sections, if hereafter deemed desirable by the Legislature. This Code contains about two thousand sections, but by reason of the blanks between articles the apparent number of sections is somewhat larger. The arrangement of the earlier part of the Code of Civil Procedure has been substantially continued here, and the parts relating to ordinary proceedings in ordinary actions, included in chapters five to thirteen of the Code of Civil Procedure, are contained in their present order. The order of the former code been substantially retained as to miscellaneous actions and proceedings. In considering the subject of code revision, we have construed the expression of opinion of judges and lawyers in favor of revision as indicating not so much a desire for a new code, as for a more convenient arrangement of procedure. In view of a strong expression of opinion against radical changes in the code, we have concluded to submit it without material change. In a few instances we have rewritten sections, but have also submitted the sections in their original form, so that the Legislature can readily adopt or re-enact them, if preferred to the rewritten sections. We have made no attempt here to write a new code. We do not think a new code is desired by a majority of the bench or bar. The arrangement which we have suggested is not in any sense new procedure, but simply a rearrangement of existing statutes in a more convenient form. The course of practice in judicial proceedings will, we believe, go on under this code and the other codes and practice acts recommended by us as regularly as if our proposed separation had not been made, and much more conveniently. There is no disruption or disturbance of practice. The suggestion has been made by eminent lawyers that the subject of procedure should be substantially committed to the courts, and that they be charged with the duty of making rules relating to practice. This suggestion seems to grow out of the supposed uncertain condition of procedure incident to the frequency of amendments to the code made by the Legislature. It is urged that if the judges were to make the rules changes would be less frequent and there would be more permanency in procedure. In our report to the Legislature of 1896 we made some observations on the subject of amendments to the code, and there pointed out that comparatively few amendments have been made to that part of the code relating to ordinary proceedings in actions. We have made another examination of the subject for the purposes of this note and submit the following table showing amendments to the parts of the code, applicable to ordinary practice. As already indicated, we have arranged the subject by articles, and in the table have grouped the sections in each article, showing in one column the number in each group, and in another column the number amended. These amendments cover twenty years from 1879 to 1899. The Code of Civil Procedure was passed in 1876, to take effect May 1st, 1877. Before it took effect, the Legislature of 1877 made several amendments. After it went into operation, it was discovered that some further amendments were necessary and they were accordingly made by chapter 542, Laws of 1879. Our examination does not include the amendments of 1879; nor does it include the amendments made by chapter 946 of the Laws of 1895, which was passed to make various technical amendments to the Code made necessary under the new Constitu |