Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1841-07-13
From the Ohio Statesman
THE JUDICIARY.
Col. Medarg.:

HOS' MeudTy'
| am grati6ed to perceive that you have
not only published my former communi-
cation, but have spoken favorably of its
object. 1t seems a writer in the State
Journal is sndeavoring to call public at
tentiOn to this matter, and the editor of
that print is equally inclined to second
his views. Having the two leading or
8 gans of the two great political parties Of
the State accessible to our effusiOns pre-
senta favorable omen, and encourages
me, to proceed with some further Obser-
Vations. Ir}
have been asked two questions in ref
srence to this subject,which will be bref-
ly answered. First: Can a convention
be called to modify particular part of
the constitution, without submitting the
whole instrument to them, fol any alter
ations they may think proper to make?--
Second: What alterations can be made
in the judicial system, that would proba-
bly, find favor with the peOple7
To the first question, answer in the
affirmative. The Constitution, Art. 7,
Sec. 5, provides for callinga convention
''for the purpose of REVISING, amending
or ckanging The constitution" Why IS
this language used? The different i'm
port Of the words proves, that the framers
of that instrument intended to leave the
people free 10 improve any particular
clause, section, or article, without allow
ing the convention to interfere with any
portions Of this fundamental law. Let
the legislature confne their recommends
ton 10 this portion of the constitution
alone; let the people vote fofit, and the
succeeding General Assembly call con
! vsntion for amending that particular part
ofthe coHstitution--and he would be a
bold man, who would propose, as a mem
Der, to touch any other portion Of that
Sacred compact No such man would be
elected 10 fill place in the body, to
whom the people Of Ohio would commit
the important power of'mending great
charter Of their Liberties.
To the second question, say, that
for the present, | do not mean to commit
myself in favor Of any peculiar mode of
reforming our judicial system. To show
however, that very simple changes would
effect great gOod--I will name one or
two. We are Nmited to four Supreme
Judges now; and the court cannot sit in
two counties at the same time. 1t re-
quires two Judges to form quorum to do
business. It sometimes happens that
these two judges disagree on point of
law; and ia that case, no decision can be
made. So, whenaIl four Of the judges
are together at Columbus, holding their
Court in Bank; 1.-two are ofone opinion
and two ofanOther, on any question be.
fore the em--no decision can take place.
Thus the people are left in doubt as to
what the law ofOhio is, until one ofthe
judges changes his opinion; or until new
Judge comes upon the bench. Ought
q State containing a million and a
hale Ofpeople TO be left in such con-
ditiOnR 4
Suppose we add one Judge 10 the
benefit Then we can always have AIDE
cisiOn When they are together, and the
law viii be settled. Suppose again, that
we divide the State into five circuits, and
let each judge take one, and thus have
the Supreme Court sitting 10 FIVE coun.
ties at oncef This would give ample
time to try all the causes taken up into
the court, without hurry or precipitation;
and then, as now. difficult OF doubtful
questions could be taken to the Court in
Bank. lfthe Judge refused to reserve the
qpestion, give either party authority to
take The case there, BY a writ Of error -
. 'One judge nov really tries the causes.---
You may see one trying an eiectment,
while the other Is reading Chancery pa.
PeEs beside bimi Or is perhaps out Ol
court altogether. ~ H
These hints are thrown out for rehec-
tiQn. kEHI be found upon comparison
of our system with those Of other states,
Ahat scarcely ! worse one can be,fSund
an the Union. l'aa' i# n O
sa'a' ,l.L. IA DEMOCRAT. J
June 22d, Is4i. 'a
HI. & " I Ia d. e E Z