lution of 1822, approved April, 1824, went into effect, was regulated by the Act of 1805 (which was based on the Spanish laws) and amendments thereto. The Code of Practice itself was written by its compilers in the French language, and many of its articles are badly translated. It was (1870) revised by incorporating some amendments (which have, from time to time, been enacted) into the body of the work. It has not been materially changed in other respects, and the numbers of the articles remain the same.

We notice some efforts now being made to introduce further amendments in order to lessen the present heavy costs of litigation which drive suitors from the courts of justice. Some change is certainly very desirable, not so much to amend as enforce the law respecting costs. When we consider how extensive the litigation is which arises from the adoption by the Legislature of a new system of practice, it should admonish us to modify with some caution. It took twenty years to settle the practice act of 1805, and since 1825 our courts have had much of their time occupied in ascertaining the meaning of the Code of Practice. The experiments in our sister States in adopting codes of procedure have also given rise to a great deal of litigation. Hence it would seem that if any change was to be introduced, it could best be done by way of amendments to the present system. It may also be observed that the new codes of procedure are rather imitations of our Code of Practice than otherwise. The preparation of the pleadings by the attorneys in New York is, we think, but a continuation of the ancient practice in that State of making up the rolls by the attorneys. The attempts of the Legislature of Louisiana to codify the other branches of the law failed.

A projet of a commercial code was prepared under the resolution of 1822, but fortunately never was adopted. It would be extremely unsatisfactory for a single State of the Union to adopt a system of commercial law which should sometimes come in conflict with the commercial law of the neighboring States as settled by their courts, and in conflict with the laws as settled by the courts of the Nation. As it is, the courts being free to act, have gracefully yielded on questions of commercial law to the customs of merchants and the rules settled

under the common law and in our sister States, so that the whole body of the commercial law governing this Union is, in the main, moulded into a harmonious whole. As it had been formed upon the custom of merchants, engrafted upon the common law, the decisions in England were generally looked to with great respect, and what is commercial law in London is commercial law in Washington, as well as among most commercial nations.

A like attempt was made to reduce the criminal law and criminal proceedings to a simple code in 1820. In 1821 Edward Livingston was elected by ballot of the General Assembly to draft a criminal code. Livingston prepared and presented to the Legislature a system comprising "a code of crimes and punishments." "A code of procedure, a code of evidence, a code of reform and prison discipline, and a book of definitions." This constituted the celebrated Livingston code, a work more famed abroad than at home-a work noted for its scientific description of crimes and offenses, and of the proceedings devised for the trial, prison discipline and punishment of offenders and their reformation. The projet never having become a law, has left the world unenlightened as to what would have been its practical operation. Being based upon the common law, which Livingston sought to simplify, much of it would doubtless have worked well, but, like all unbending legislative provisions regulating the details of practice, it would have taken years of discussion before the courts to settle its meaning. As it was, scarcely a question could be raised under the criminal law which had not been previously decided by some binding decision.

The Legislature of 1855 attempted to revise the statutes of the State, and adopted the hazardous experiment of annexing to each statute a clause not only repealing all laws contrary to the provisions of each act revised, but all laws on the same subject-matter, except what was contained in the civil code and code of practice. There being no saving clause except as to the act relating to crimes and offenses, an adherence to the language of the statutes would have occasioned the overthrow of offices and the loss of rights. It forced the courts to depart from the letter of the law in order to ascertain its meaning

and prevent an evil which the law-givers had not foreseen. In the recent revised statutes the Legislature has repeated the same experiment without even a saving clause as to the crimes and offenses, and again forced the courts to interpret so as to prevent great evils. The revised statutes of 1870 are comprised in 3990 sections, and contain the matters of the revised statutes of 1856, and the recent amendments.

Having thus hastily glanced at some of the prominent points in our legislation, we will look for a moment into the courts in session in our midst, and take a practical view of the laws enforced in them. We shall find that, among others, the courts of the United States have jurisdiction of cases

Ist. In admiralty.

2d. In bankruptcy, patents and copyrights.

3d. In revenue and prize cases, offenses against the United States and other causes in which the Government of the United States is interested as plaintiff.

4th. Of causes affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, and controversies between two or more States.

5th. Concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts of all cases, where the matter in dispute exceeds $2000, in which a citizen of another State is plaintiff or defendant and the other party is a citizen of the State, or in which an alien is a party.

6th. Concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts, where the matter in dispute exceeds $2000, and arises under the laws and Constitution of the United States or treaties made under their authority.

We shall find that the State courts have exclusive jurisdiction of crimes and offenses against the State, of probate matters, of all controversies between citizens of the State, whether it respects their property or status, or obligations arising from wrongs done to them by others. And they have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the United States on all these questions when an alien or citizen of another State submits himself to the jurisdiction of the State courts, or when sued does not avail himself of his right which he has to remove his cause to the courts of the United States.

If we now regard the mode of proceeding in the different

courts we shall find it very dissimilar, and, in a few particulars, resting upon principles directly the opposite of each other; for example: if your ship has been damaged by collision on navigable waters, and the party who was instrumental in occasioning the damage, is within the reach of process of the court, you have your choice, to proceed against such party on the law side of the State or Federal courts, according to the citizenship of the party, or to bring your action in admiralty, in rem or against the person. If you sue on the law side of the courts, you must take care that neither you nor your agents controlling the ship have been in fault. For the courts of law, deriving their rules from a rigid morality, inform you that they do not sit to balance negligences, faults and wrongs; that whoever comes before them must come with pure hands. Their maxim is, procul, O procul este profani, and the suitor who has been partly in the wrong, is sent away without redress, however much he may have been damaged, and how much greater soever may be the fault of the other party.

The courts of admiralty, looking at human actions in a more benevolent light and with a juster appreciation of the conduct of men in times of danger and excitement, consider the faults and negligence of both parties, and where both are in fault, estimate the loss of both vessels and divide the loss between the parties, and grant relief where, in a court of law, it would be refused.

The proceedings in admiralty are of civil law origin, and many of the principles governing the court are of very great antiquity. They can be traced back to the Greeks before the Christian era, whence they were received into the Roman jurisprudence.

The jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty is exclusive, whenever the proceeding is in rem; that is, against the vessel or other thing not the subject of maritime jurisdiction. If, however, at the same tine persons can be found and service made upon them by arrest, which is still allowed as citation, and the matter to be brought to the consideration of the court is one for which the common law gave a remedy, the courts of ordinary jurisdiction have concurrent jurisdiction in personam, and may decree compensation and damages as in other cases. But if the

ship or vessel is the object of pursuit, and the same is to be taken into the custody of the law and made responsible for liens and privileges in ordinary cases, civil and maritime, including spoliation, civil and maritime, or prize cases, the District Courts of the United States alone have jurisdiction, and any judgment pronounced in a proceeding in rem in the highest court in the State where the same can be rendered, if that court be but a justice of the peace, in an unappealable case, can be carried before the Supreme Court at Washington, where it is sure to be reversed-that Court zealously protecting the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over such cases.

In admiralty, personal qualities are in effect attributed to matter, so that it is the ship, vessel, or other thing which is supposed to have offended in prize cases, and in ordinary civil cases it is the ship or vessel which owes the duty or lien, as well as the captain and owners, and all persons interested are admitted in the process in rem as claimants, and the thing is treated as a real defendant. Revenue cases are in some respects assimilated to the above, although not belonging to the admiralty jurisdiction.

The proceedings are commenced by a libel (libellus, a little book), in which the plaintiff, through his lawyer, called a proctor, alleges, and articulately propounds, in a series of numbered propositions, the grounds of his complaint, to be specifically answered by the defendant, or by whoever comes into the case as claimant, if the proceedings be in rem. If either party give a bond for property, etc., he borrows a term from this, a solemn form of the civil law, and calls it a stipulation.

The Constitution of the United States conferred upon the courts of the Union exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty. In England this jurisdiction extended to tide waters only. At the commencement of the Government, giving the language the signification it then bore, it was supposed the power conferred only extended to tide waters, and so it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The jurisdiction in the case of Warring et al. v. Clarke, 5 How. (46 U. S.) 44, decided in 1847, for a collision between the steamboats Luda and De Soto, was maintained by proving that there was a per