156 



National Resources Committee 



drafting, and the direction that this provision has 

 taken, is set forth in the following summary of con- 

 ditions contained in the Book of the States, vol. I, 1935. 



Twenty-six of the 52 agencies (i. e., agencies doing legisla- 

 tive rofercuce worli) do bill drafting, and of those, 18 carry 

 on bill drafting in the same department as the library service 

 and legislative reference. Although the Attorney General's 

 office very rarely carries on the other types of legislative 

 reference service, in 22 States it does all, or part, of the bill 

 drafting. Private lawyers are hired to act as bill drafters 

 in three States: Delaware, Nevada, and Wyoming. Five 

 States have created separate departments to do bill drafting 

 and statutory revision. Connecticut has a statutory revision 

 commissioner who also does bill drafting. His work and that 

 of the legislative reference bureau are complementary and 

 close coordination and cooperation is maintained between the 

 two agencies. The Massachusetts house and senate counsels, 

 the New York legislative bill drafting commissioner and the 

 Rhode Island law revision commissioner are similar examples. 

 lu Vermont the board of legislative draftsmen is solely a bill 

 drafting agency and legislative research and statutory revi- 

 sion are done by two other distinct agencies. 



Revisor of Statutes 



The statutory law of a nation or State should con- 

 stitute a consistent whole and its several provisions 

 be grouped together according to a logical arrangement 

 and scheme of classification to the end that the law 

 regarding any particular matter may readily be ob- 

 tained. If this end is to be achieved, it is furthermore 

 necessary that this law be purged of ambiguities and 

 inconsistencies, that modifications in, and additions to, 

 the law as originally enacted, introduced by subse- 

 quent legislation, be incorporated in such original stat- 

 utes, that redundances and repetitious provisions be 

 eliminated and, generally, that the statement of the 

 law be as direct, terse, and clear as possible. These 

 ends are only in part achieved by the preparation of 

 codes such as have been described in our chapter deal- 

 ing with legislative proceedings and documents, since 

 the purpose there sought is a consolidated statement 

 of the law as it exists at the time of the undertaking 

 of the codification, rather than a restatement, and much 

 less a revision, of the law. It results that many, if not 

 most, codes represent a statement of the law in a far 

 from desirable form. Thus, Mr. Fitzgerald, chair- 

 man of the House Committee on the Eevision of the 

 Laws, in reviewing the work involved in the prepara- 

 tion of the United States Code, said : *' 



The present code, admirable as it is, and an immense im- 

 provement over the chaotic condition that existed before, when 

 no one could be certain of the law even after exhaustive 

 research, is cumbersome, verbose, and replete with absurdities, 

 contradictions, illogical distinctions, and complexities which 

 tend to bewilder and confuse anyone seeking to know the law. 

 * • * There are instances of sections of statutes carried 

 into the code which, while in fact inoperative, obsolete, useless. 



"Cong. Record, July 27, 1031, p. 6313. 



and confusing, are neither specilically repealed nor superseded 

 except by tlie rhange or progress of affairs. Such sections 

 are those relating to Indian agents which no longer exist, 

 provisions for decoration of officers distinguishing themselves 

 ill Indian wars, and so forth. 



The Committee on Revision, of the Laws having the 

 preparation of the code in charge is responsible for the 

 statement thai, in their opinion, were the code purged 

 of all obsolete provisions and the retained provisions 

 restated in proper form, a reduction of its bidk by 

 one-fourth or one-third could be had. 



There are few, if any, directions in respect to which 

 the Congress can do a more important work in the way 

 of facilitating research than in taking the steps that 

 will lead to a thorough revision of the form of state- 

 ment of the Federal law now in force. This is urged 

 in the strongest way possible by the chairman of the 

 House Committee on the Eevision of the Laws. Mr. 

 Fitzgerald, in the speech in the House to which refer- 

 ence has been made, after pointing out the need for the 

 purging of the code of all obsolete provisions, 

 continues : 



All of this is but a preparation for a real revision of the 

 statute law. The most competent, well-trained, careful, and 

 sensible specialists should be employed under the direction of 

 the Committee on the Revision of the Laws, or otherwise, to 

 prepare a restatement of the present law, one title at a time, 

 in the most simple, clear, and precise terms. As each title 

 is completed and approved by the appropriate department, bu- 

 reau, or commission of the Government, and carefully checked 

 by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Con- 

 gress, and by such committees of the House and Senate as 

 will be willing to give the matter attention in a reasonable 

 time, a bill may be introduced in Congress embodying the new 

 statement of the law conforming to the understood policy, 

 intent, and purpose of Congress in the original legislation, but 

 with such amendments as will prevent unjust discriminations 

 and remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfec- 

 tions, both of substance and of form. It is essential that this 

 revision work be done each title separately, one at a time, 

 because of the inability of Congress to deal with bulky meas- 

 ures proposing any changes whatever in the current law. 



By way of reinforcing and amplifying this recom- 

 mendation by the chairman of the House Committee 

 on the Revision of the Laws, the following points may 

 be emphasized: 



1. It is desirable that this work of statutory revision shall 

 be undertaken directly by Congress rather than by being en- 

 trusted to an administrative agency, such as the Department 

 of Justice, or an ad hoc organization, and that, to this end, 

 the actual work be entrusted to a committee such as the 

 present House Committee on Revision of the Laws, or a joint 

 committee of the two Houses. This is desirable since it is 

 certain that Congress will be reluctant to accept any revision 

 that is not made by its own agents, and action upon the con- 

 solidated bills representing the titles to the code will be 

 difficult to be had unless there is in Congress a committee 

 and Members informed in respect to the woric and interested 

 in promoting action. 



