The Green Bag
568
directed to the state; Private Law is that in which it is mainly directed to individuals. I do not think it means that these topics are capable of exact separation. . . . It is said that Public Law comprises that body of law in which the people at large or, as it is sometimes put, the sovereign, or the state, as representing the people, is interested, whilst Private Law comprises that body of law in which the individuals are interested.
Rights 1. 2. 3. Rights 1. 2. 3.
resulting from the status of persons. Personal rights. Domestic relations. Political relations.“ resulting from the acts of persons. Property. Contract. Delict.
He mentions Dr. Hammond's opinion
This is a forcible, and sometimes a useful,
that the Gaian classification “which
way of putting the distinction. But it is still not accurate. For. though the interest of the public is in Public Law, conspicuous or predominant, there is hardly any law in which the interest of individuals is not also concerned. And so, also, in private law. The interest of the public may be in the background, but it is always there."I
has maintained its ground from the time of the Roman classical jurists to our own and which, after all the
As to the Gaian
classification
he
says :— This classification is just as inaccurate and just as useful as the last. In that one sense it may be said of every law. public or private, ad personam ad per'tinet. Every law is addressed to a person, bidding him to do, or not to do, a particular thing; but the objects of law, as they are called, may be either things or persons; and it is with reference to this division between the objects of law that the classifimtion of Private Law into classification of the law of Persons, and the law of Things has been made. There are, however, very few laws of which the objects are exclusively persons or exclusively things.‘2
Professor
Markby
nowhere
shows
appreciation that Blackstone and Hale so defined the meaning of their use of the division “Persons, Things and Ac
tions" as to render it definite and avoid his criticism. Mr. Campbellin his "Science of Law,"" after setting forth a proposed analysis of his own, says :— It may also be remarked that these leading topics may be arranged according to the Roman principle of classification, in which case they would be as follows: "Markby's Elements, quoted from Keener's Selections, pp. 78-9. For example: The Bill of Rights is intended to safeguardmindividuals. ‘' Jersey City, 1887.
criticism which has been lavished upon it at various times, seems to be the only method upon which we can hope today to see the desired and scientifically necessary union of internal and external systems.” “ It is in this connection that Dr. Ham mond presents his masterly exposition
and defense of the classification of Hale and Blackstone"; and Mr. Camp bell himself admits the practical value of Blackstone's arrangement, saying:— Its value is attested by the incalculable benefit it has conferred in long practical use. It will be noticed that it wholly ignores the Roman distinction between Public and Private law. Why this division was rejected by so eminent a lawyer as Sir Matthew Hale has never been explained.‘7
In this last statement he is in error, for Austin, Poste and other foreign jurists had explained it before his book was written; and Dr. Hammond had also shown precisely by what process of reasoning it was rejected.
The difficulty of making use of such a division and something of the lack of clearness of just what is the distinction between the two divisions is indicated
by Dr. Holland, who is frequently “ Reverse 3 and 1 and we have almost Black stone's order of subjects. ‘5 Introduction to Sandars' Justinian. p. xxxi. ‘0 See his Introduction to Sandar‘s Justinian. ‘7 Science of Law, p. 105.
