The Opunake Times TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1895. CODIFICATION OF LAWS.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 148, 3 December 1895, Page 2

The Opunake Times TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1895. CODIFICATION OF LAWS.

(N.Z. Times.) In the United States the process of codification is systematic. There the idea is that it is of the first importance that the people who have to obey the laws of the country must have those laws before them in such a shape that he who runs may read. It is a very proper idea, very just, and very considerate. Indeed it is a perfectly tenable hypothesis that if the lav/ is not simply and succinctly stated it is a positive crime to punish a man for breaking it. Obviously the peop’e who have to obey are entitled to know what they have to obey. It is a truism. The truism governs the practice in every State of the American union. We in New Zealand accept the truism with the completeness which governs the American practice. The main difference is that we do not let it govern our practice. We go a little beyond theory, for we do consolidate our laws. But we do the work slowly, by fits and starts. If delay were the only fault of our practice. that practice would bo more endurable. But there is a worse fault. Codification has to be done by Parliament ; Parliamentary methods are political; every codification Bill is suspicious to the Opposition ; it is frequently assailed in good set terms, time is wasted, and frequently the codification is spoiled in the doing. Governments, it must be confessed, are not altogether blameless in the matter. They have been known to get clauses smuggled in under cover of codification which were new law, and they have not always been famous for explaining the situation. Hence our codification is hampered. In America the laws are codified periodically, and the period is, we beh'eve, ten years. The benefit is realised by everyone who, going to the States, finds every business man in possession of a copy of the codified lew, and therefore knowing what he has to obey. Oar system is not systematic. It is a combination of “go as you please” and “go as you can.” A good deal of our law is codified, or consolidated as we prefer for some reason to call it, and a good deal is full of pitfalls to the unwary, and a source of profit to the lawyers, who alone possess the key to the various intricacies. It has been recently suggested in a Southern journal that the appointment of a permanent commission charged with the work of codification, or consolidation, would get over the difficulty. The idea is good. Firstly, the work would be continuous and automatic ; and secondly, it would be non-political. It has been further suggested that, to avoid the labor of passing consolidating measures through Parliament, the codes made by the committee would simply lie on the Parliamentary table for a certain stated time, to become law provided that no objection is taken within that time. For this suggestion there is the undoubted fact that all the laws in any particular codification have been passed by Parliament. There would be therefore no usurping of the functions of the Legislature by a committee charged with the duty of merely putting together without obscurity all that the Legislature has said about any particular subject. In theory there is nothing objectionable. But in practice the Statute law’ of the country must be above suspicion. The necessary condition of the system of codification suggested is that the committee codifying must be absolutely non-political, and above the influence of any party whatever. It must not be a Parliamentary Committee. The decisions of no Parliamentary Committee can be allowed to become law on the condition that no objection is taken within a certain time in Parliament. The idea of a non-political committee simply to focus the exisling law, by pruning redundancies and eliminating references, is not repugnant to the constitution. It is often said that there is too much law-making. But it is said equally often that human nature is imperfect. It is quite impossible for human power to make a perfect law on the first attempt to deal with a complicated and difficult subject. The making of laws is necessarily to some extent a tentative process. it is impossible to foresee every contingency or to provide for every development, or to for tel I particular situations. Therefore the initial condition of our law-making is that there muot be amending Acts, and sometimes many of them. Codification must not be too fast; it must wait for the experience of the world to point out the necessary amendments. Otherwise every amending Act, even every such Act of one or two clauses, would require the codification of the body of law allocked at every change. That would he ruinous of time and patience. Codification must be periodical. If the work is done nou-politi-cally by a board or committee of qualified experts, the Legislature can very well sot its stamp upon their work in a merely formal way. It will be said on the other side that codification gives a line opportunity for review and amendment. But that is

branching off into a new subject. Codification, or consolidation, should be codification and nothing else. Simplification, which is the only object of codification, can be very well left to a committee subject to the Legislature as aforesaid. Amendment on the other hand can only be effected by Parliamentary agency. The two should be kept separate; and there would be no difficulty in doing so. Codification should be regular, and by automatic process. At present it is by no process that recommends itself by any decent rule, and is very unsatisfactory.