Opinions upon the Corpus juris Project Any ordinary scheme of relief proposed would meet with suspicion by those of the profession who have sadly realized that of making law books, of much cost and little
value, "there is no end.” But when the eminent names of laborious students and conscientious workers which are identified with your project are regarded, it may confidently appeal alike to public spirited men of means who are sincerely inter ested in great works of real usefulness to the general public, and to the profession whose libraries it will enrich and whose labors it will vastly aid. The unceasing energy, the intense industry and the comprehensive knowledge which you and your proposed coadjutors will bring to this work are guarantees of its early and success~ ful accomplishment. In view of all this I can no more doubt that generous patronage will endow it than I could withhold my hearty commendation of your prospectus.
Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Phila delphia Bar, law partner of john G. Johnson, Esq.:— That such a work, if well done, would be a
benefit to the profession cannot be gainsaid. The multiplicity of decisions tends to create confusion as to underlying principles. I am therefore heartily in sympathy with the general purpose of the work you suggest. I also agree with you that the work cannot be well done as a commercial scheme, and that if done at all it will be best done by a small executive body, preferably by the trained experts of the law schools and adequately paid by funds provided by an endowment in advance. I have grave doubts, however, whether the first essay in this direction will produce a really great work, and whether it will return the money expended on it. A really great work of this kind, in my opinion, must be substantially the product of a single mind, and that mind of a special and peculiar ability. Such a man must be born, not made. No amount of intelligence or training can produce him. I do not mean to underrate the value of co-operative assistance or criticism, but any systematic, logical, clear statement of the law must be largely the work of one master mind. It does not follow that because you have put the work in the hands of a small executive committee of able men, it will be a
109
success. The ability required is not only of a high order, but peculiar in character. I believe, therefore, that the chances are against the production, in the first instance, of a
really great work. This, however, is no argu ment against the undertaking. The great Law Digests and Encyclopedias are, I think, but the first fruits of a general demand for a systematic statement of the law, and if an at tempt adequately to supply the need in this respect will involve many failures there is all the more reason for commencing the work at once. Ernest '1‘. I'lorance, Esq., of the New 0r leans
Bar, Commissioner on
Uniform State
Laws for the State of Louisiana:— Much of the criticism of the adrrunistration of law, particularly in the lines of its uncer tainty and of the delays in reaching even its uncertain results, springs from the confused condition in which the body of the law exists in this country. Under the system of the Common Law, as administered in the forty five states of the Union. there is to be found ample authority for nearly any proposition that can be advanced. In examining the precedents thus established, it is almost im possible for any Bench to gauge the value of a precedent by the ability of the Judges who may have created it. . . . The number of courts, unless the majority
is overwhelming, is no proper guide to the correctness of the principles determined. The consequence of all this is that the practitioner cannot anticipate what the opinion of the Court before which he is to appear may be as to the conclusion to be reached from the examination of these contra dictory precedents. The benefit of such a work as you propose is evidently, therefore, in~ calculable. . . . Of course this work will be much more diflicult than the writing of a long text-book, because it would require in its confection the keenest acumen, the most concise and accurate use of language, the most intimate knowledge of the law as it is, and the broadest-minded
appreciation of the real meaning of ~the law. Take, for instance, the subject of the rela tions of Principal and Agent, known in Louisiana Code as the contract of “Mandate." The law on that subject is stated in seventy short paragraphs, and it is very diflicult to think of any question arising from that rela tion that does not find its solution in one of those Articles. It would be impossible to
