Correspondence The “American Corpus Juris” Criticised PROFESSOR WIGMORE ON THE "AMERICAN CORPUS ]URIS"* To the Editor of the Green Bag:—— Sir: I have read in your February number the Memorandum proposing an "American Corpus ]uris,”—having already perused the Memorandum in manuscript, by the courtesy of my very good friends, Messrs. Alexander, Kirchwey and Andrews, its proposers. I re gret to take any public position of dissent from their plans. But I am unwilling to see the proposal given such publicity without doing my small share to save the supposed benefactor from wasting (as I conceive) his money on it. The proposal is untimely, unsound and futile. It is untimely, because our law is passing through a period of radical changes, both in substance and in form, all along the line. A generation must elapse before it can be stated accurately as a body of fixed and coherent principles. It is unsound, because there are today fifty distinct bodies of independent sovereign law within this nation, varying at countless points and in infinite details. Therefore, it is and will be scientifically false to attempt to state an "American" law, until the progress of Uniform Codification (just begun by the National Conference) shall have removed the
larger part of this tangled mass of irreconcil able contrarieties. That period is yet far ofi. Its arrival will depend mainly upon the speed of assimilation in social conditions, and cannot be conjured into fancied existence by twenty volumes of printer's ink. It is futile, because there are not yet in
this country scholars enough to produce such a work equal to the ideals set forth. And there are not scholars enough, because we have yet, as a profession, been devoting too brief a period of years to the scientific study and analysis of law, and therefore do not yet
qualified for that particular task. There is reason to believe that the compilation of this particular “Corpus Juris" would necessarily involve embodying and fixing permanently upon our law an untested and premature juris tic analysis and method. This would be, juristically, a calamity for our law. The opinion that it would be a calamity is shared by several well-known legal thinkers with whom I have discussed the matter before now. In making public this firm conviction, I am moved (as those who know me will well understand) only by a sense of respect for the scientific needs of our law, and not by any desire to show disrespect for the learned authors of the project. I do not wish to enter upon any controversy, but merely to record my emphatic dissent, and to encourage those who share this dis sent. JOHN H. WIGMORE.
Chicago, [1]., May 10, 1910.
REPLY [Dean Wigmore himself mailed a copy of his let ter to Mr. Alexander, whose reply accordingly appears herewith. The views of the Green Bag are expressed on page 420 supra.—ED.]
To the Editor of the Green Bag:— Sir: My friend, the learned Professor Wig more, so often an optimist and by nature an
idealist, occupies a strange role in preaching the gospel of despair. What do Professor Wigrnore and his faculty teach their students? If it is the law, then that which they tach
should be capable of accurate and scientific statement, otherwise his law-school cannot justify its existence. Again, were social conditions to remain stationary-and if no other problems than
now exist were to enter the
equation
the Bench, the Bar and the people of this
possess an output numerous enough to insure
nation, represented by the present and the
the easy discovery and availability of men
next generations of men, could no doubt
- See editorial, p. 420 supra.
manage to continue the administration of justice in face of the present conditions, so
