Judge Rodenbeck and the New York Code practice provisions in an action. At the same time a purely scientific or philo sophical arrangement must be avoided. It is a question of expediency." He accordingly proposed a classifi cation based upon the successive steps in an action, arranged under the fol lowing general heads: (1) general pro visions, (2) commencement, (3) trial, (4)
judgment, (5) review, (6) satisfaction. When, however, a satisfactory classi fication has been adopted, and consoli dation has been accomplished, the result will be incomplete, Judge Roden beck said, if the work stops there. There are reasons for a thorough re
form. But “a total repeal of the pres ent system would be demoralizing. It would be unwise to adopt a practice act not based upon the present code.” Judge Rodenbeck proceeded to lay down the principles that should con trol the drafting of a practice act.
He favored an act as brief as possible, leaving details to be covered by rules of court, and showed himself in gen eral agreement with Professor Roscoe Pound's proposals in his article on "Some Principles of Procedural Reform" (4 Illi nois Law Review 388, 22 Green Bag 237). He worked out the topic, however, with much thoroughness, with great vigor
of analysis, and with no little ingenuity, his conclusions being the more valuable as those of an independent observer. To do justice to Judge Rodenbeck’s
337
The paper met with a favorable re ception, the Association manifesting its desire that the reform so ably advo
cated be straightway begun, by adopt ing a resolution which provided for the appointment of a committee of five
with full power to act with regard to Judge Rodenbeck’s recommendations, and for the printing and distribution of five thousand copies of the address at the Association’s expense. In supporting this resolution said:
Mr.
Adelbert
Moot
“I have worked with Judge Roden beck. I know his plan will stand examination. I know this is a great subject, and if this plan will not stand examination it is the first one he ever submitted in a work of this kind that I know anything about that would not." The committee appointed by the President, Senator Root, consisted of Judge Rodenbeck, chairman, three other members of the old Board of Statutory Consolidation, Messrs. Hornblower, Mil burn and Moot, and as the fifth mem ber Charles A. Collin. The next step, after the appointment of this committee, was taken when
Frederick E. Wadhams, secretary of the state bar association, prepared a legis
lative bill requiring these same five men, as the Board of Statutory Con
solidation, to take up the subject of revision of the code and report upon it,
paper would require fuller discussion
provision being included that copies of this work be distributed to the judi
than can here be accorded it. It difl'ered from the typical bar association address
ciary and members of the bar for sug gestions and advice.
in its laborious research, its compres sion of material, and its clear-cut rea
ally result in the discharge of the bar
soning.
Not simply a helpful address,
but something more than that, a legal monograph of striking merit, it deserves the attention not only of those inter ested in a local question, but of students of procedure generally.
The enactment of the bill will natur association’s committee, and the defeat of the bill, if it be a remote possibility, will stir the committee to whatever action seems most desirable. It has done no work but awaits developments. The bill is as follows: —
