Session laws, revisions and constitutional publica Arizona, Revised Statutes 1901, 1v. (official). California, Codes 1901, 3v., Civil, Civil Procedure and Penal Codes, annotated by Carter P. Pomeroy (unofficial). This revi convention sion was prepared by a code commission and reported and adopted by the Legislature 1901. Since this publication was made, the amendments proposed by the commission have been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in the case of Lewis v. Denny, 66 P. 478. tions District of Columbia, Code 1901, 1v. (official). In force Jan. 1, 1902. Also published in United States Statutes at Large, v.31. Illinois, Revised Statutes 1901, 1v., annotated by Harvey B. Hurd (unofficial). The regular biennial publication of these statutes. Indiana, Revised Statutes 1901, ed. 2, 4v., annotated by Harrison Burns (unofficial). Indiana, Revised Statutes 1901, ed. 3, 2v., annotated by F. A. Horner (unofficial). Kansas, General Statutes 1901, ed. 2, 1v., annotated by C. F. W. Dassler (unofficial). Louisiana, Civil Code (to 1898) 1900, 1v., annotated by Edwin Thomas Merrick (unofficial). Contains very valuable notes (the work of many years) by Chief Justice E. T. Merrick. Louisiana, Code of Practice (to 1900 inclusive, issued November 1900) 1901, ed. 2, 1v., annotated by H. L. Garland and Simon Wolff. Maryland, Supplement to Codes (1890 to 1900) 1900, 1v., by J. P. Poe. Issued prior to Oct. 1, 1900, but not noted in 1900 Summary. Nebraska, Statutes 1901, 1v. (unofficial). The regular biennial publication of these statutes. New Hampshire, Public Statutes (to 1899) 1900, 1v., edited by William M. and Arthur H. Chase (unofficial). New York, General Laws 1901, ed. 2, 5v., by Hydecker (unoffi cial); General Laws 1901, 3v., by Cumming & Gilbert (unofficial); Revised Statutes 1901, 3v., by C. F. Birdseye (unofficial). Ohio, Annotated Statutes 1900, ed. 3, 3v., by Clement Bates (unofficial). South Dakota, Annotated Statutes 1901, ed. 2, 2v., by E. L. Grantham (unofficial). Uniformity in preparation and pub Texas, Penal Code 1901, edited by J. P. White (unofficial). lication In Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon of session new editions are in preparation. Each of the above includes the legislation of the year of publication unless otherwise specified. Constitutional conventions. Alabama, May 21 to Sep. 3, 1901, Journal, 8vo. 1v.; Constitution (in effect Nov. 28, 1901) 8vo. 1v.; Debates, folio, 1v. Virginia, June 12, 1901-Still in session. No important publications as yet issued. UNIFORMITY IN PREPARATION AND PUBLICATION OF ROBERT H. WHITTEN With the increasing annual output of state 'legislation, the increasing importance of statute as compared with case law and the increasing study of comparative legislation the question of the mere form in which statutes are published becomes of great importance. In preparing the annual Summary and Index of Legislation and in making various comparative compilations as an aid to legislation, I have naturally become familiar with the methods of various states and have been impressed with the necessity for their reform. Clearness, brevity and uniformity are the chief ends to be attained. A certain uniformity is desirable in all state publications, but particularly is this true of statutes. Every general statute is more or less interstate in its effect, influence or interest, so that it becomes necessary for the lawyer, the business man and the student of one state to consult the laws of many other states. A certain degree of uniformity in preparing and citing statutes would therefore be of much service. 1 Acts should be numbered consecutively, and citations should give number and section rather than page, title or date. All but seven states, Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Oregon, place a number at the beginning of 'Reprinted from proceedings of National association of state librarians, Waukesha Wis. July 5, 1901. laws in prep aration and publication of session laws Uniformity each act. Reference to number and section is definite and accurate, while reference to page is not, for there may be two or three acts on the same page, or there may possibly be two editions of the laws with different paging. The methods of citing acts amended or repealed are extremely diverse and confusing. There is no uniformity even within the same state. A common method in Pennsylvania and other states is to cite by title and date of approval. This is extremely indefinite, and a long search is often necessary to find the act referred to. In Ohio each volume of session laws is numbered, and acts are commonly cited like cases in court reports: 94 O. L. 386, meaning Ohio session laws v. 94, p. 386. This is almost universally confined to citations of court reports, and as such is distinctive and advantageous; but because it suggests a court report its use for any other purpose is confusing. Whether title and date of approval should be given depends on circumstances, but no citation is complete without a reference to number or chapter. 2 Arabic numerals should be used for chapter numbers in place of the antiquated and obscure roman numerals. Only nine states or territories still use roman numerals: Arkansas, California, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. They take much more space, waste time in deciphering, and increase enormously liability of error. The absurdity of writing XXXVIII for 38 is so obvious that there should be no difficulty in prohibiting roman numerals entirely in state publications, as was done years ago in the best library work. 3 For rapid reference, act or chapter number should appear as part of each page heading, and each section should have a side head or a marginal summary. At present in 16 states the chapter or act number appears as a part of each page heading, and in all but 13 states each section has either a side head or a marginal summary. In three states each section has a side head, in New York each section has either a side head or a marginal summary, and in 30 states each section has a marginal summary. Most of such summaries could be greatly improved by more care in stating the essential points in the most compact form. 4 Session law indexes of all states should be based on a uni- Uniformity form system of subject entries. in preparation and pub lication laws Indexes of a few states are very good, but most are deplorably bad. For the highest usefulness, however, it is necessary that of session indexes be not only good, but uniform. In studying, comparatively, legislation on a particular subject, the labor would be greatly lessened if the investigator could be sure of finding the subject under the same word in each index. At present it is necessary to look under all conceivable entries, and even then one can not feel satisfied that the result is exhaustive. Uniform indexing will be one of the greatest aids to the study of comparative legislation. To secure this we should have a committee compile a table of headings on the plan adopted by, the A. L. A. for its subject headings for dictionary catalogues. 5 Each volume of session laws should contain a tabulation of all changes in statutes since the last edition of revised statutes. Massachusetts, Vermont, Michigan, and Wisconsin follow this plan, and though the last revision of the statutes of Massachusetts was published in 1882, by using this table it is easier to find the existing law on any subject in Massachusetts than in other states that have published revisions of their statutes within the last five years. Frequent revision is very desirable, but however frequent it may be, the last revision should be supplemented with this simple device for keeping it up to date. In order to make a thorough comparative study of legislation on a particular subject it is necessary to examine the last revised statutes and each subsequent volume of session laws; and since many states have had no revision for 10 or 20 years, the labor now involved in the undertaking is obviously very great, and the saving that would be effected by the annual table of changes is most apparent. 6 For citations, dates, and amounts, arabic numerals should, as a rule, be used. In the session laws of many states, numbers are invariably spelled out, and in only 16 states are arabic numerals used with any degree of consistency. In the citations of an act with its date of approval and numerous amendments it is peculiarly absurb and exasperating to have each number and date spelled out. Aside from the greater expense of printing, the reader's in preparation Uniformity time and energy are needlessly consumed and the liability to error increased. The following extract from New York, 1900, ch. 729, is taken to compare the two forms. It is first given of session just as published, with all numbers spelled out, and then with arabic numerals and common abbreviations. and publication laws 1ST FORM Section 1. Section five of chapter five hundred and thirtyseven of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-three, as amended by chapter five hundred and sixty-seven of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-four, and chapter seven hundred and eight of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2D FORM (Better and in one third the space) §1 Laws of 1893 ch. 537 §5, as amended by 1894 ch. 567, and 1899 ch. 708, is hereby amended to read as follows: The greater brevity, clearness, and efficiency of the second form is most striking. 7 Acts should be published separately as soon as signed, distributed to regular exchanges, and sold at a nominal price to individuals. In Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania each act is printed as soon as signed; and in Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio and Wyoming the acts as soon as signed are printed in regular form for binding in the annual volume, but are distributed in unbound form as fast as printed. The European states generally issue their laws in separate or unbound form as soon as signed and printed. The advantage of prompt publication is very great. No consultation of statutes can be depended on unless brought down to date, so as to include every statute that has been passed. Interest always centers in the latest law. Where ignorance of the law is no excuse for its violation, it is very unreasonable that one should be compelled to wait from three to nine months for opportunity to consult an act to the provisions and penalties of which he is subject. Several states presumably attempt to meet the need of prompt publication by providing that the acts be published in two newspapers of each county. This is an enormously extrav |