This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1886. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... ANSWERS. TO QUESTION I. IT. B. Brown, Detroit, Mich.: Yes. Rufus King, Cincinnati, 0.: I believe that it is not possible to reduce the whole body of the law to the form of a statute. The question should be: "IIow far is it possible to codify the law?" John L. Bridgers, Tarboro, N. C.: As that portion of the common law which is not inconsistent with the statute law is in force under most of our state constitutions, it should be put in such form that all may know what the common law is in every state. In the decisions many principles are declared, but they lack stability and certainty. The decisions would furnish the substance of the statute, to which could be added such general laws of custom as the framers might think necessary. To prevent judicial legislation is one of the principal objects of codification, such legislation being contrary to the constitutions of the states, which prohibit two legislative tribunals for the same government. Manuel Eyre, San Francisco, Cal.: It is. I think the bar universally in California, even those who formerly opposed the adoption of the civil code, are of this opinion. DEGREES Henry AVade Rogers, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Yes. Alex. Graves, Lexington, Mo: Nothing is more to be regretted than any attempt looking to reducing the law to the form of a statute. Frank Goodwin, Boston, Mass.: No. Austen G. Fox, New York, No. Defining of new terms more uncertain than applying the common law. Egbert Whittaker, Saugerties, N. Y.: Yes. Geo. W. Biddle, Philadelphia, Pa.: I think it is undesirable (as well as impracticable) to attempt to reduce to the form of a statute, or, in a word, to codify the general body of the law. N. C. Moak, Albany, N. Y.: Decidedly, no. Morris M. Cohn, Little Rock, Ark.: Yes. In the long run, codification does not i...