The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1858-12-01
tut tHt opITIC UI DeHUUTa
The Extra JudgeShiD.

1HC LAtId JuuSCOnlps
Mr.. EDIToR:-The validity of the
election of Hon. Nathan Evans to the
Office Of Common Pleas Judge in the 9Th
Judicial District has been questioned -
The ablest argument yet advanced on the
subject, is that of Judge Hanna, publish
ed in the Nc ConnslsutNe Enquirer in Au-
gust last. read that argument for the
first time during the past week, and am
free to say that the Judge has presented
his views in very candid and ingenious
manner. And although am not partic-
ularly interested in the matter, yet as it
has been publicly and privately discussed,
too claim that privilege whereby "every
citizen may freely speak, write aud pub
hsh his sentiments on all subjects" But
do not intend this communication as a
special reply to the Judges argument
because in the view l take of this ques.
tion, reply to much of his matter is
unnecessary, and moreover prefer to ex-
press my own views On the question in
my own way.
The objection to Mr.. Evans election
appears to be, that he was elected by the
whole district, whereas it is claimed that
the legislature had no power to su-
t,orize such an election but could only
authorize the election of On additional
Judge by subdivision of district; and
in this way is presented for consideration
the constitutionality of the act of April
II, 1858. "to authorize the election of an
additional Judge OF the court of common
pleas of the eighth judicial district" (55
Ohio La,os, l56, under which MIR Evans
was elected.
| We cannot fail to perceive that the OBJ
lection to this election stands on exceed
ingly narrow ground; for it is admitted
that the Judges have equal power and an-
| thority throughout the whole district, and
that the subdivisions are for election pur-
poses merely. Harris VS.. Gest. Ohio
State Reps 469, where it was held that
courts might lawfully be in session in diff
ferent counties of the same subdivision
at the same time. Aud, therefore, that
the people of one county in the district
were as much interested in the election of
Mr.. Evans as the people of another, is
admitted. No electer cast a ballot for
him who had not a general interest in his
election equal with any other voter of the
district. Every man who could have vo-
ted for him under any law, had an oppor.
tunity to vote for him under this law
The objection is in effect that it was ar
election by all the persons interested anC
not an election by part only of thos'
interested. 1t appears to me that sucl
an objection is captlous, and only cap
tious; and that before this election can b.
held void on that ground. the repugnanc,
between the law authorizing it and tht
constitution ought to he made appear il
most clear and unmistakable 'erms.
While the rule which requires that tn
incompatibility shall be clear before q
act can be set aside. is Of nearly univer
sal application, the court will alway
look to the subject matter in determin
} ing whether an act is constitutional, an
} more liberal construction will manifes,
2 ly be given in some cases than in other.
3 and think the rule requiring acts in ,h
sense to be literally construed, ought I
D be extended as far to uphold laws regu
0 atlng the judicial force as any other kin
) of legislation whatsoever. One gres
6 evil which led to the formation of tt
0 present constitution, was our defectiv
0 judiciary system. That system was ii
I flexible; it could not be moulded by tt
0 legislature to meet the wants of the pc,
I pie; and in forming the new constitution
0 the convention ever kept in view, that III
5 der the then existing organic law, each
the four Judges of the Supreme Con
is was compelled each year to hold Snpren
Il Court in half the counties of the Stat
e. besides term in bank at Columbus, al
that this was beyond legislative contro
and knowing that no body, however s
gacious its members might be, could for
. see what might in time be the wants
our great and growing state, it was d
termined that the new system should
Il left IN some measure to the regulation
the General Assembly. If the coustit
Of ton is not to be construed in this spir
ir If its construction in this respect is
!. be narrow and technical-then one gre
= object of the convention has proved
]. bortive. But these remarks are not u
j. ged because of any supposed necessity f
d their application to uphold this electio
On the contrary, it appears to me Gle
y that the regular as we'll as the just mot
e of electing additional judges is by tt
If whole district; and all that have sa
l. in favor of liberal construction of su,
II acts is to Indicate the only ground upt
Of which, in my judgmeu,, the election Of a
& ditional Judges by subdivisions can
0, sustained.
In the discussion of this question, it
le important to examine Art. 4. Sec. 81
- 1t is as follows: THE State shall be {
st vided into nine common pleas districts,
= which the county of Hamilton shall c.
1t stitute one. of compact territory, al
ir bounded by county lines; and each
said districts, consisting of three
more counties, shall be subdivided in