462

The Green Bag

is a codified law uniform throughout all India on the topics of civil as well as criminal law. The most important of these later Indian codes are those which cover the subjects of successions,5 con tracts,6 evidence,6 prescription,7 nego tiable instruments,8 transfer of property,' easements,9 trusts,9 civil procedure,9 criminal procedure.9 So highly are the codes of criminal procedure regarded, that these have been made applicable also to British Zanzibar in Africa.10 The effect of these Indian codes on British law has been enormous. The partial codification of the law of Eng land along a few lines of special topics is largely due to the success of the Indian codes. From England the movement toward codification, even by attempt ing it piecemeal, has spread to America. In the year 1910 it was announced in the House of Lords by the Lord Chan cellor that he and other eminent jurists were engaged in an attempt to codify the criminal law of England.11 The Eng lish particular codifications of special legal topics by statutory enactment are now no longer strange: on the contrary this plan has been adopted in the United States — the "uniform" negotiable in struments, practice and sales acts bear witness to the success of the American adoption of this English method." • Enacted in 1865. •Enacted in 1872. 7 Enacted in 1877. •Enacted in 1881. •Enacted in 1882. Other important codes are: The "Court Fees Act" of 1870, "Oaths Act" of 1873, "Specific Relief Act" of 1877, "Registration Act" of 1877, "Stamp Act of 1879, "Suits Valua tion Act" of 1887, "Debtors Act" of 1888. See Preface of Stokes, Anglo-Indian Codes. "See Stokes, Anglo-Indian Codes, Table of Contents. "Law Notes. May 1910, p. 36. "It should not be overlooked that the publica tions of vast encyclopedic treatises of law, like Lord Halsbury's "Laws of England" and the "Cy clopedia of American and English Law" are stepping stones to a complete codification of law in both countries.

Objection 2 — A republic cannot codify its law; to do this necessitates a monarchy or an empire. This is a weak argument, and is easily refuted. If it be argued that the codes of France and Germany, etc., were made possible only by the power of a monarchical government, and that Napoleon 13 and William II are reminiscent in this respect of Justinian, there is one irrefutable reply : Has not Switzerland, a republic — and a fed erated republic also — successfully codi fied her private law? A lesson in experience can also be taken from our Spanish American sister republics — especially Argentina and Chile — which, although republics, have excellent codes of law uniform for each country. Did not Louisiana codify her law most excellently soon after her ad mission to the American union? Finally, have not many of our American states already codified parts of their own law, for example the Negotiable Instruments Act? The argument that a republic cannot codify its law falls to the ground from its own weight. Objection 3 — Uniformity of American law can be obtained by making state legis lation uniform; there is no necessity for a uniform codified federal system of private law. This objection recognizes by im plication the value of a codified American law, even if it is attempted to do this piecemeal: for a code is a promulgated collection of laws scientifically arranged,14 and a code may comprise an incomplete as well as a complete system of positive law. In other words, codes may be par tial as well as complete. The various uniform state acts adopted by many American states are of the nature of 11 Napoleon was not Emperor, but First Consul, when the Code Civil was completed; but the Empire quickly followed. » See Black, Law Did. ("Code and cases cited).