JB/042/468/001

Click Here To Edit

1824. July 17
Constitutional Code

IV
Ch. XII Judiciary collectively
14 §.16. Sistitive
§. 17 Emendatory
§. 18 Preinterpretative

36
Art. 36. Rules as to the
mode of applying such
amendments
1. Rule 1. Amendment
in terminus. Uses
1. Maximizing bulk
2. Maximizing clearness

In the shape recommended prescribed for the remedy, care is taken has been taken
to minimize the bulk of it: and from this care result the following
rules

1. Bulk concerning the amendment a tense of the amendment. Exception for the purpose the
very word in which the be it is desired that in the implication
that the amendment be not disapproved of the law after
the amendment has taken place will stand.

2. That among the reason Let brevity be maximized Maximize the brevity of
For reason give brief indication of the shape or several shapes in which
evil in the one case, good in the other will have place. Neither
addresses phrase nor so much as a word
addressed to passion or affection.

37
Art. 37. Rule 2. Attach
justification reasons. These
will consist of indications of
1. Evil effects of the law
as it stands
2. Good effects from the
change
Maximize bulk of
these reasons likewise

Good effect producible and meant to be produced =
putting extinguishing an end to the Opinion-setting trade carried on
by Law Practitioners. No man will pay to a Law practitioner
money for an opinion that produces binds nobody, when he
can have a gratis from the Judge an opinion that
will bind the Judge.

38
Art. 38. Good effect
producible and meant to
be produced by the effect
how given to the exercise
of the preinterpretative
function — extinguishing
the Opinion-setting trade
carried on by Law
Practitioners.

No man who can obtain
gratis from the Judge an
opinion that will bind
him, will pay another
man for an opinion that
will not bind the Judge.

In no other case exists
then any such absurd
practice in paying a
man for saying what (he
guesses) another would
think.

On any other occasion if a man wants to have what
Peter on any subject is Peter's opinion, it is to Peter that he
applies: not to Paul or John or any one else: if it be a medical
Physician he do it is to the Physician he applies: not to
an Apothecary any one else or a Che s Chemist. Patient to Physician
Doctor what is your opinion of my case. Physician to Patient
Sir, I won't tell you: ask my Valet de Chambre: pay him
and he will tell you & though he what he guesses it is, though
he neither has heard nor will have heard any thing about is it from
me. Between two such persons any such dialogue as by far
too absurd ever to have been held. But no language can have
been too absurd to hear been held by Lawyers.

Identifier: | JB/042/468/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 42.
Date_1	1824-07-17	Marginal Summary Numbering	36-38
Box	042	Main Headings	constitutional code
Folio number	468	Info in main headings field	constitutional code
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e14
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	j whatman turkey mill 1824
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer	admiral pavel chichagov
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1824
Notes public		ID Number	13391
Box Contents