cupying a printed page, and points out how
the real significance is obscured by a mass of
useless words. The really important part is
thus expressed:
"A comparaître d'liui à troisjoursfrancs à
/* audience et far devant MM. les presidents
et juges composant la premiere Chambre du
tribunal civil dc premiere instance de la Seine,
séant an Palais de Justice à Paris, à dix
¡teures du matin, pour, par les motifs énoncés
en la requête dont copie est donnée en tête des
présentes, en voir adjuger an requérant les
fins moyens et conclusions."
M. Breal comments: "In reading this
summons an inexperienced person would
think he had to betake himself in three days,
at IO o'clock in the morning, before the ma
gistrates of the First Chamber. Inactingthus
one would be sure to lose one's time and
would risk, in spite of his trouble, being con
demned by default. In fact, all these indi
cations are false, for 'à trois jours francs'
(in three full days) means in five days; ' dix
heures du matin' (io A.M.) really means
noon; 'the First Chamber' will in all prob
ability not be the one to judge your case;
and finally it would avail nothing to 'appear'
personally for an attorney alone is qualified
to represent you. So " comparaître à trois
jours francs à dix heures du matin " means
simply : Go right away and find an attorney,
pay him a fee, and don't bother yourself any
more about it. That is what a summons sig
nifies, but one must understand it and not try
to follow directions that it contains, for this
document that should warn and inform is so
out of date that it can only lead to error."
In conclusion M. Breal demands:
"That the legal documents be legible and
comprehensible. We would thus gain a bet
ter understanding of the different phases of
the operations of justice.
"What would we lose? A vestige of the
past. Certainly we are not revolutionary
in the matter of justice. We feel how much
more power an organization has which pos
sesses such far-reaching attachments with all the traditions of our country. Exterior pomp, even, which recalls to us the past, is not displeasing to us, and a President of the Assize Court, draped in the purple of a toga, the pattern of which goes back five hundred years, is more imposing and inspires more respect than the judge of New York City, who, clothed in a check suit and yellow shoes, goes to court in the garb of a habitue of fashionable beaches. But the imposing costume of French magistracy does not hinder it from speaking clearly. We should be shocked if it expressed itself in language contemporary with its costume. But that is precisely what the pettifoggers do who use in their relations with us the language of our ancestors. "It is regrettable to note that in France, the country of pure, clear and elegant style, the judicial acts are incomprehensible. Jus tice, addressing the people, does not speak the language that this people speaks and un derstands." fiow it comes about that loth century French is still written by 2Oth century law clerks, is told in few words. Procedure was not uniform in France till 1667, when Col bert unified the code and forms for all the country. A volume was published contain ing formulas for every circumstance, and the style used was based on the "Stile du Châtelet," which already had a century of usage to give it the antique flavor which it preserves to the present day. A hundred years ago there was a decree of the Constituent Assembly that "the code of civil procedure be imme diately reformed so that it be made more simple, more expeditious and less costly." M. Breal would add to these desirable quali ties "more comprehensible" and he hopes that the committee on the new code may re quire only to have its attention called to the need for a change of language to accomplish what the last century did not succeed in doing.
