Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/109

 Opinions upon the Corpus juris Project

97

nental jurist. That is the only way to secure to them their proper place in the development not only of the Anglo-Saxon law- but also in the progress of general law-principles of the inter national law and of the world's civilization. After almost two years’ study I am thor oughly convinced, that the American Corpus juris, while a gigantic task, can be accom plished, and I congratulate you upon being one of the men who will add this most bril liant ray to the glory of the American people.

of the plan of making a Corpus juris. I have wished it and advocated it for many years. It will much reduce litigation, and be worth to the country many times what it will cost. I am inclined to think that your plan of a founda tion is the only feasible one. . . . As is said in your pamphlet on the Corpus juris, the work cannot be done by volunteers. Compe tent men must be employed to give their whole time to it, probably for several years; and they must therefore be paid. . . . There should also be committees of supervision and

M. Georges Bsrbey, of the French Bar (Avocat a la Cour d'Appel), of Counsel for Dreyfus and member of the French Commission on Revision of the Code Napoléon:— No one will proﬁt by this comprehensive creation so much as foreign lawyers who are now extremely embarrassed to study a ques

revision, as you suggest, who, so far as I can see, must consent to act without pay, unless

tion relating to American Law, in view of

what appears to them to be a great confusion of the laws and of jurisprudence. A book on American Law planned after our analytic method would be quite a relief to us on this side. His Excellency, Wu Ting-tang, Minister of the Chinese Empire to America, a Barrister of Lincoln's Inn, London, and the ﬁrst Oriental

admitted to the English Bar:— Your project to have a complete codiﬁca tion of the laws in force in the United States is grand and worthy of support. If I am not mistaken, I do not think any nation has a complete set of codes embodying the laws of the state for the guidance of the public. If your scheme is carried out. I feel sure it will be a boon, not only to the legal profession but to the public in general. Some years ago in Peking, when I was en trusted with the enormous task of codifying the laws of my country and putting them in proper shape, I could not get a comprehen sive work giving me a general idea of the laws of the United States, so you see if the work contemplated by you is carried through, it will not only be useful to your countrymen but to foreigners also. Professor Henry T. Terry,‘ of the Law Faculty of the University of Tokyo, japan:— It is needless to say that I heartily approve

your foundation should turn out to be larger than seems to me likely. But there are many eminent lawyers who would give a remarkable amount of time to such a work gratis. On the whole, I think your plan is a good one and quite feasible, if you can get the money. Of course many thousand cases would have to be read, practically the whole body of our case law. But that is a matter merely of time and labor. Of the cases con tained in the reports nine-tenths can be at once put aside as unimportant, consisting merely of repetitions of well-settled prin ciples, or of decisions on local statutes that need not go into the Corpus juris or on states of fact so special that they are not likely to occur again. As is said in your pamphlet ruling and leading cases, and really important illustrative cases only should be used! . . . This brings me to the chief thing that I have to say, namely, the paramount importance of analysis. Analysis, analysis, and always analysis; and absolutely exhaustive. Every legal conception must be analysed down to its ultimate legal elements,—that is, to the point where the nature and content of the elements discovered and the meaning of the terms used to denote them, cease to belong to the science of law. No smallest corner or crevice must be left dark or doubtful. And the results of that analysis must be expressed in a clear and accurate terminology. Nothing short of this will do. . . . In the memorandum I have prepared and send you, I have set out the plan of arrange ment that seems to me the best. It is the only one that I have been able to devise where I—I speak for myself-have heen able to ﬁnd a place for every rule, every detail, every decided case.

' See 64 supra. where Professor Terry is quoted in the r emorandum in re Corpus junk. and refer ence made to his presentation of the subject to the American Bar Association in 1888.

In a mere outline or sketch,

such as I have given in my memorandum, ‘See p. 75, supra.