Before the first edition of the Revised Statutes was issued, the legislature commenced the work of alteration and amendment, many of the changes occurring in eighteen hundred and twentyeight and being included in the first official edition.

In eighteen hundred and thirty many acts were passed by the legislature which, although not referring in their context to the Revised Statutes, made material changes. In the same year an act was passed (L. 1830, ch. 320) entitled an act to amend certain provisions of the Revised Statutes, which made sixty-four changes. The same act contained a provision that "in every publication of the Revised Statutes hereafter to be made, the amended and additional provisions herein contained, shall be inserted in their proper places as parts of the said statutes, and in the manner hereinbefore prescribed; and such alterations as may be requisite, shall be made under the direction of the secretary of state, in the num bering of the sections in every title of the said statutes affected by this act."

The second edition was a private edition published by the revisers in eighteen hundred and thirty-six, pursuant to the act above mentioned. The amendments made subsequent to the first edition were included in this edition, and new titles and articles were added as required, making a change in the numbering of the sections.

The third edition was a private edition published by the revisers. (Vols. 1, 2, 1864; vol. 3, 1848.) The ten years elapsing since the second edition were fruitful in legislation affecting the Revised Statutes. In the third edition the text of the Revised Statutes as originally passed was given, except where it had been repealed or altered by the legislature. Where the original text had been repealed it was omitted, and where specific changes had been made such provisions were given in the amended form, followed by notes showing the authority therefor. All provisions affecting the Revised Statutes passed subsequent to the year eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, were inserted in those titles and articles where the same or similar subjects were contained.

REVISION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF 1846.

In eighteen hundred and forty-two the Hon. Arphaxed Loomis, the chairman of the committee of the judiciary, introduced bills in the assembly, which were reported from the committee March second, eighteen hundred and forty-two, designed to reform the system of pleading and practice, by requiring less strictness in legal language and allowing amendments when the errors were not material to the real merits.

Just previous to the reporting of the foregoing bills, and after the committee's report had been drawn, the chairman received from John L. O'Sullivan, a member of the judiciary committee, and representing a New York city district, a communication from David Dudley Field. The communication was made up of an elaborate essay upon the subject of legal reform and three bills intended to carry the views expressed in the essay into effect. The essay and the accompanying bills were attached to the report of the committce as an appendix, and were printed in assembly document number eighty-one of the year eighteen hundred and fortytwo. None of these bills were passed.

Mr. Loomis was a member of the constitutional convention of eighteen hundred and forty-six and was one of the thirteen members of the committee on judiciary. The abolition of the court of chancery, the blending of law and equity procedure into one jurisdiction and a common system of practice, were subjects that claimed the attention of the committee. Early in the session Horatio J. Stow, of Buffalo, advanced the proposition of the appointment of a commission to reform and revise the practice and pleadings, and this, with the addition of the project of the codification of the general laws, were debated at length.

The constitution reported by this convention and which was adopted by the people of the state November third, eighteen hundred and forty-six, by section seventeen of article one, required that the legislature at its first session after the adoption of the constitution, should appoint three commissioners, whose duty it should be "to reduce into a written and systematic code the whole body of the law of this state, or so much and such parts thereof as to the said commissioners shall seem practicable and expedient." The commissioners were required to specify such alterations and amendments as they deemed proper and were directed to make reports of their proceedings to the legislature whenever called upon to do so.

REVISION COMMISSIONERS OF 1847.

In pursuance of this requirement, the legislature by an act passed April eighth, eighteen hundred and forty-seven (L. 1847, ch. 59), appointed Chancellor Reuben H. Walworth, Alvah Worden, who had been a member of the constitutional convention and served on the judiciary committee, and John A. Collier commissioners to be styled "commissioners of the code," who are generally referred to as the commissioners of the code of eighteen. hundred and forty-seven.

The commissioners had reported that the work of reducing into a written and systematic code the whole body of the law would take more than seven years and would involve an expense of more

than fifty thousand dollars, and the senate adopted a resolution referring to its judiciary committee the question as to whether it was not wiser for the codifiers instead of attempting to reduce the unwritten law to writing to revise the statutes adapting them to the new constitution, omitting what was useless or had been repealed and adding notes of explanation with reference to the decisions of the courts. Under date of April fifth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, the committee reported that it was their opinion that the practicability and expediency of reducing the law to a written and systematic code rested with the commissioners and that the legislature had no right to limit their action in the matter. This report was accompanied by letters from each of the commissioners, A. Worden, dated Canandaigua, March twentyeighth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight; A. L. Robertson, dated New York, March thirty-first, eighteen hundred and forty-eight; and S. C. Hawley, dated Albany, March twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight; in which they take the same position as the judiciary committee with reference to the mandatory character of the language of the constitution. (Senate Documents 1848, No. 69.)

By an act passed April twentieth, eighteen hundred and fortyseven (L. 1847, ch. 98), Reuben H. Walworth was allowed until July seventh following in which to qualify, and on the thirteenth day of May (L. 1847, ch. 289), Mr. Walworth declining to serve, Anthony L. Robertson was appointed a member of the commission. The following year John A. Collier resigned, and on January eighteenth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, by a joint resolution of the legislature, Seth C. Hawley was appointed commissioner.

The constitution of eighteen hundred and forty-six further required, by section twenty-four of article seventeen, that the legislature at its first meeting after the adoption of the constitution, should appoint three commissioners, whose duty it should be "to revise, reform, simplify and abridge the rules, practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings of the courts of record of this state" and to report thereon to the legislature.

In carrying out the provisions above cited, the legislature, in the same act whereby commissioners of the code were selected (L. 1847, ch. 59, § 8), appointed Arphaxed Loomis, Nicholas Hill, Jr., and David Graham commissioners to be known as commissioners on practice and pleadings," commonly referred to as the commissioners of practice and pleadings of eighteen hundred and forty-seven, whose terms of office should expire February first, eighteen hundred and forty-nine. By the act appointing them, it was specified that it should be the duty of said commissioners "to provide for the abolition of the present forms of

actions and pleadings in cases at common law; for a uniform course of proceedings in all cases, whether of legal or equitable cognizance, and for the abandonment of all Latin and other foreign tongues, so far as the same shall by them be deemed practicable, and of any form and proceeding not necessary to ascertain or preserve the rights of the parties."

Arphaxed Loomis has already been spoken of. Mr. Hill was a learned lawyer, one of the authors of Cowen & Hill's notes to Phillip's Evidence, and the reporter of the series of supreme court decisions known as Hill's Reports. Mr. Graham was a leading lawyer in New York city, and the author of Graham's Practice.

On September twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and forty-seven, Messrs. Graham and Loomis submitted a report to the legislature in which they recommended to the legislature the following propo

sitions:

1. The establishment of a new system of practice and pleadings instead of a plan of amendment merely.

2. The abandonment of the distinction between the modes of proceedings and pleadings in cases of legal and equitable cognizance and the adoption of an uniform system as applicable to all

cases.

3. That the distinction of forms of actions at law be no longer retained and that every action rest upon its own facts and the law of the case as applicable to the right which it involves.

4. The establishment of a new system of pleadings based upon the principles which have just been stated. (Assembly Documents 1847, No. 202.)

Mr. Hill had come to conclusions different from those of the other members on the first and second of the propositions advanced, and, believing that there should be perfect unanimity in the commission tendered his resignation. Mr. Loomis was asked to nominate Mr. Hill's successor, and on naming David Dudley Field, a joint resolution of the legislature (September 29, 1847) appointed him a commissioner.

The new commission met in November to arrange preliminaries and then adjourned to the following January. On January eighteenth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, the commission met in Albany and each member presented a draft of the more important parts of the work on civil actions. A chapter prepared by Mr. Field was made the basis for the action of the commission and when its labors were completed, accompanied by a report drawn by Mr. Graham, its work was laid before the legislature. The bill, known as "An act to simplify and abridge the practice, pleadings and proceedings of the courts of this state," was passed April twelfth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight (L. 1848, ch 379),

and by a subsequent act was given the short title of the "Code of Procedure." (L. 1848, ch. 380.)

At the next session of the legislature the term of office of the commissioners was extended to April first, eighteen hundred and forty-nine (L. 1849, ch. 18), and by chapter three hundred and twelve of the laws of eighteen hundred and forty-nine Messrs. Loomis, Graham and Field were appointed commissioners to "further revise, reform, simplify and abridge the rules and practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings of the courts of record," their term of office to expire December thirty-first, eighteen hundred and forty-nine.

The same act (L. 1849, ch. 312) constituted and continued John C. Spencer, Alvah Worden and Seth C. Hawley, commissioners of the code, to hold office for two years, but John C. Spencer declined to serve. Commissioners Worden and Hawley made a report to the senate January eighth, eighteen hundred and forty-nine, on statutes relating to highways, bridges and ferries (Senate Documents 1849, No. 5). Before the expiration of the term provided in the statute the office was abolished.

On April eleventh, eighteen hundred and forty-nine, the Code of Procedure was again submitted in an amended form and passed by the legislature. (L. 1849, ch. 438.)

The Commissioners of Practice and Pleadings, Messrs. Loomis, Graham and Field, pursuant to the act of eighteen hundred and forty-nine (L. 1849, ch. 312), reported to the legislature of eighteen hundred and fifty the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure, the latter being an amplification of. the Code of Procedure, neither of which was adopted. (Assembly Documents 1850, No. 16.)

Commissioner Graham dissented from certain portions of the report. (Assembly Documents 1850, No. 17.)

On April tenth, eighteen hundred and fifty (L. 1850, ch. 281), the section of the act of eighteen hundred and forty-nine appointing Messrs. Spencer, Worden and Hawley Commissioners of the Code (L. 1849, ch. 312) was repealed, and the terms of office of Messrs. Loomis, Graham and Field, Commissioners of Practice and Pleadings, having expired, the work of revision and codification under the constitution ceased.

Two years later the fourth edition of the Revised Statutes made its appearance, being a private edition, under the editorship of Hiram Denio and William Tracy. The title is "The Revised Statutes of the state of New York as altered by subsequent legislation, arranged in the manner of the Revised Statutes." Difficulties in the manner of arrangement and section numbers were encountered by the compilers and the changes necessitated by the