From the standpoint of the reviser, our statute law may, among other things, be criticised for:

1. Unnecessary duplication.

2. Lack of uniformity in sections dealing with the same or similar subjects.

3. Lack of uniformity in the sense in which the same word or phrase is used.

4. Excessive length of sections and want of paragraphing within sections.

5. Lack of classification and arrangement.

6. The intermingling of general with special, local or temporary laws.

7. Defective indexing.

Under any plan for the revision of the statutes, the work must be approved by the legislature. A revision of the statutes has meant a periodical rewriting, rearrangement and condensation of the previous revision and the subsequent session laws. Immediately after the publication of the revision, and sometimes before, the legislature would proceed to undo the work as rapidly as possible. New laws were enacted with but little reference to the existing laws. There was no attempt at classification or arrangement or to follow any methods adopted in the writing of the revision. A periodical revision hardly ever contains more than a part of our statute law and leaves a large gap between each revision to be filled in with undigested session laws.