39 Woods v. Mains, 1 G. Greene 275, at 292; Stephens v. The D. & St. P. R. Co., 36 Iowa 327, at 329; Long v. Schee, 86 Iowa 619; Wheelock v. Madison County, 75 Iowa 147.

40 Clare v. The State, 5 Iowa 509; Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 1, at 11; Collins v. Laucier, 45 Iowa 702; Miller v. City of Oelwein, 155 Iowa 706, at 710, 711; Conly v. Dilley, 153 Iowa 677, at 692, 693.

41 Duncombe v. Prindle, 12 Iowa 1, at 11.

42 Miller v. City of Oelwein, 155 Iowa 706, at 710, 711.

43 Des Moines Ry. Co. v. Des Moines, 152 Iowa 18, at 25.

44 Des Moines Ry. Co. v. Des Moines, 152 Iowa 18, at 27, 28. 45 Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa 541.

46 Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa 541, at 548.

47 Quoted in Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa 543, at 549.

48 Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa 543.

49 Code of 1897, Sec. 132.

50 Code of 1897, Sec. 4650.

51 Koehler & Lange v. Hill, 60 Iowa 543, at 553.

52 Jordan v. Circuit Court of Wapello Co., 69 Iowa 177, at 182, 183.

53 The State v. Burk, 88 Iowa 661, at 665; Tennant v. Kuhlemeier, 142 Iowa 241, at 245.

54 Des Moines Ry. Co. v. Des Moines, 152 Iowa 18.

55 State v. Burk, 88 Iowa 661, at 664.

56 Chamberlain v. Iowa Telephone Co., 119 Iowa 619, at 627; Eckerson v. Des Moines, 137 Iowa 452, at 487; Slutts v. Dana, 138 Iowa 244, at 250.

57 Code of 1897, Sec. 48.

58 Code of 1897, Sec. 48, Par. 1.

59 Code of 1897, Sec. 48, Par. 23.

60 McClain's New Iowa Digest, Vol. IV, pp. 3906, 3907; Callaghan's Iowa Digest, Vol. II, p. 1658.

61 Small v. Wakefield, 84 Iowa 533, at 536; German Savings Bank v. Cady, 114 Iowa 228, at 231; Jones v. German Ins. Co., 110 Iowa 75.

62 Code of 1897, Sec. 48, Par. 24.

63 Ebersole's Encyclopedia of Iowa Law, p. 7.

is."8

64 Drahos v. Kopesky, 132 Iowa 417, at 500; Haskel v. Burlington, 30 Iowa 232; Stephens v. The D. & St. P. R. Co., 36 Iowa 327; State v. McEntee, 68 Iowa 381; Allen v. City of Davenport, 107 Iowa 90; Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 Iowa 182, at 187.

65 Stephens v. The D. & St. P. R. Co., 36 Iowa 327, at 332; Drahos v. Kopesky, 132 Iowa 417, at 501.

66 Chamberlain v. Iowa Telephone Co., 119 Iowa 619, at 628.

67 Chamberlain v. Iowa Telephone Co., 119 Iowa 619, at 628.

68 Chamberlain v. Iowa Telephone Co., 119 Iowa 619; Des Moines Ry. Co. v. Des Moines, 152 Iowa 18.

69 Eldridge v. Kuehl, 27 Iowa 160, at 176; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, at 550.

70 Jameson v. Burton, 43 Iowa 282, at 285, 286.

71 Rice v. City of Keokuk, 15 Iowa 579, at 583.

72 Campbell v. Jackman Bros., 140 Iowa 476, at 480.

73 Lumber Co. v. Board of Review, 161 Iowa 504, at 507.

74 Hubbell v. Polk Co., 106 Iowa 618, at 620, 621; Johnson v. Carson, 3 G. Greene 499.

75 The State v. Hartman, 122 Iowa 104, at 105, 106; Queeny v. Higgins, 136 Iowa 573, at 574.

76 Code of 1897, Sec. 3446; Strother v. The Hamburg, 11 Iowa 59, at 61; Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa 114, at 122.

77 Tathwell v. Cedar Rapids, 122 Iowa 50, at 55, 56; Chiesa & Co. v. City of Des Moines, 158 Iowa 343, at 346.

78 Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 Iowa 182, at 105; The State v. McCoy, 149 Iowa 500, at 503; The State v. Read, 162 Iowa 572, at 575.

79 Bartruff v. Remey, 15 Iowa 257, at 258; Haskel v. City of Burlington, 30 Iowa 232, at 235; Galusha v. Wendt, 114 Iowa 597.

80 In re Assignment of Shonkwiler, 104 Iowa 67, at 69, 70; In re Estate of King, 105 Iowa 320, at 325.

81 The State v. Smith, 46 Iowa 470, at 673; The State v. Botkin, 71 Iowa 87, at 89; The State v. Wignall, 150 Iowa 650, at 657.

82 Fry v. Fry, 125 Iowa 424, at 430.

THE DRAFTING OF STATUTES

BY

JACOB VAN DER ZEE

I

PRIMARY CAUSES OF DEFECTIVE STATUTES THE memory of Jeremy Bentham is deservedly held in special veneration on account of the enormous influence which he exercised over the form and subject-matter of legislation.1 And yet, although his labors extended over the last quarter of the eighteenth century and a little more than the first quarter of the nineteenth, so far as the form of statutes in English-speaking countries is concerned the greatest progress and improvement have come only in recent years. Especially is this true of the United States. Although Americans have never demanded special training in the science of legislation2 they have gradually had the conviction borne in upon them that legislators, like other public servants, need to be equipped with scientific knowledge or, at any rate, that scientific knowledge and expert assistance should be placed at their disposal for constant use.

Nor have the lawmakers themselves been the last to realize what is wrong: in many States they have provided agencies to aid in the difficult task of writing legislation, knowing only too well from experience that the English language wrapped up in the ordinary statute is an instrumentality as dangerous as an explosive, for the consequences of which they must regard themselves primarily responsible. If, then, the texts of laws enacted by a legislature are frequently uncertain and otherwise defective, what are the immediate causes? Simply stated, there