Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/434

Rh contribution to the literature of the subject.

principal business of that body at its next

He administered the coup de grdce to code

session, and indeed for some years after,

agitation. It may be remarked that at a

was to make good his shortcomings. This

very early period in its history the State of

process soon reduced the Revised Statutes

Michigan had felt — saving the presence of

of 1838 to original chaos, and within a few

Mr. Browne — that it had had enough years

another revision was ordered, which was made by Sanford M. Green, who exe of codes. The first complete and methodi cal arrangement of its laws appeared in cuted his task with such care, skill, and judg 1827, and was produced by a commission, of ment that it has been the basis for every successive compilation



which Fletcher was of the laws since then. a member. It was a Green's work was not code of considerable final, however; Judge merit. But when the Campbell records that State was organized, it " was somewhat something different mangled by the zeal of was needed; and this certain so-called re time the task was com formers whose impar mitted to the Chieftial ignorance of law Justice alone, who had enabled them to pro to get an extension of ceed with a degree of time within which to confidence not usually finish it. The work shown by competent was really done, it is said, by a clerk in his legislators." 1 Now, office; and when it all this experimenting finally appeared it was had cost a vast deal of in the shape of a Re money just when the vision of the Statutes, State could least af ford to be extravagant, elaborately arranged and had thereby cre and so thoroughly subdivided that no ated so much feeling one could make a that when the Consti reference to it without tutional Convention

using some such mulsat in 1850, that body tiplicate formula as prohibited any more general revisions. But in 1873 State Sen "part 3, title vi, chapter 1, section 3,.sub divisions 4-6." This elegant feature was ator Nathan G. King, who had been in his contributed by E. Burke Harrington, who youth a law partner of Hammond and Hogewas one of the commissioners designated to boom at Albany, had a joint resolution approve the work, and who had, as Judge adopted directing the Governor to appoint a Campbell says, " a profound admiration for commission on codification. Governor Bagthe complicated divisions and subdivisions ley referred the subject to Attorney-General of the New York Revised Statutes."1 He Marston, who reported that the framing of a was the first of the Michigan Chancery re code would not only be a breach of the con porters. But unhappily Fletcher had not stitutional prohibition of general revisions, paid much attention to the instructions he but it would violate that other provision in had received from the Legislature, and the the Constitution which leaves it solely to 1 Campbell's Judicial Sketch. 1 Campbell's Michigan, p. 510. S2