82              JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Jan. 16,

sions here and there, is to undermine and destroy the simpli-
fied system. Enough of the simplified system is retained, to
make the chapter seem, to the uncritical eye, to be the same
in substance with the simplified system, while such scope and
direction are given to the simplified forms that are retained,
as to make them in practice work gradually the destruction
of the simplified system as a scheme of specific issues. The
old system is reestablished in a hostile relation to the new,
and the latter is so mangled and crippled as to ensure its en-
tire destruction, and to bring back, into the practice of the
Courts, the old pleadings in a more prolix and abusive form
than ever. Even the power of the Courts over bad pleading
is crippled by express provision, and license is thereby per-
mitted to unguided ignorance and wilful perversity to con-
fuse judicial practice. Every imperative rule against techni-
calities and prolixity, except one, is struck out, and that one
is rendered of no effect; and even from the section of the
simplified system which permits a deviation from the strict-
ness of the simplified forms, 'so long as substance is expressed
without prolixity,' the words 'without prolixity,' are struck out.
The simplified system, as a scheme of special issue express-
ed in a few plain words so that the jury can at once under-
stand the matter in dispute, is entirely destroyed. Every
rule, too, which shows, by the matters which it abolishes,
the exact changes from the old forms to the new, has been
struck out, thereby destroying the indications of the doctrinal
connections between the two, and rendering it difficult, if not
impossible, to understand the simplified forms that are retain-
ed by the codifiers. The student of pleading will find in
the simplified forms without these rules, a contradiction of
every thing he has read, without being furnished with any
explanation of the discrepancy. In fact all the guides for
pleading aright, which were carefully introduced into the
simplified system, have been struck out. The scopes of
most of the pleas, (for it must be held in mind that pleas
have both a logical and legal scope,) have been rendered
doubtful, where there can be no doubt in the simplified
system, because of certain rules defining directly, and others
defining indirectly their scopes, and also because of direct
references connecting the pleas with the declarations. A
further perplexity is created, by retaining in the chapter some
of the simplified forms with the rules which make them valid,
while retaining other like forms and leaving out the rule's
which make them valid. Either all such rules should have
been retained or all struck out. But manifestly, all such
rules are necessary to the validity of the forms to which they
relate. Because of certain oversights, some of the pleas and