Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-01-22
gbe Ohio 6tatesmam
T Z B II o
OHIO LEGISLATURE.
ADJOURNED sEssIoN.
in SENATE.
MONDAY, January 2lst, ls6l-2P P. M.

PETITIONS PRESENTED.
Mr.. MONROE presented petition from cit.
zens of Washington township, Hardin county,
relative to levying tax for certain purposes;
Also, of Mr.. Perkins and IL other citizens Of
Huntington, Lorain county, relative to granting
certain legal rights to women;.
Also, the petition of Hon. Philemon Bliss and
20 Others Of Rlyria, on the same subject;
Also the petition of John H. Bognter and
other county officers of Lorain county, relative
to extending the term of Office of county audi
tors.
SECOND READINoes :,
The folio wing bills were read a second time,
and properly referred;
s.. l9l-Supplementary TO the act entitled
an act.to provide for the protection Of the can
ais Of the canals of the State of Ohio, the reg
ulation of the navigation thereof, and for the
collection of tolls.
S.B. I92-Further to regulate and prescribe
the duties of township assessors and county au'
ditors.
BILLS INTRODUCED.
Mr.. BREWER presented new bill
s. B. No. 1870 amend the fourteenth SEQ.
ton of the act entitled an act concerning the
relation of guardian and ward.
Iue Euleb WoEO buppCuuCug huu bhlu uill Whb
read q second time, and referred to the COM
mittee on the Judiciary.
Mr.. STANLEY, from the committee Of Con
ference to whom was referred the matter of diff.
ference on 8. B. No. l8I-making partial ap.
preparations for the year 1861.
Reported favorable to changing the appropri'
alton for the enlargement Of the Penitentiary
from FIVE thousand dollars to two thousa nd FIVE
hundred dollars, which was agreed 10.
Mr.. GARFIELD from the Conference COM
mittee TO whom was referred House joint reso.
luton No. 80, reported that the Senate should
recede from its amendment, and that the House
resolution be 40 amended as to printin the Ger.
man language but 900 copies Of each of the
documents therein named, except the Governors
message and the report Of the Auditor of State,
of which there shall be printed 800 each, as
already provided in said resolution.
On the motion to agree to said report, the
ayes and noes were demanded.
Mr.. GARFIELD did not wish the Senate to
agree to the report of the Committee of Con-
ference, believing that the number of German
documents might be diminished by another Con-
ference Committee. He urged many reason
against printing the various reports in the Ger
man language.
Mr.. CUPPY favored printing in the German
lhuBuhkGI huu ueiu tuub buC OOob vi ptluuDA was
not 30 much in the number printed as in the
translation and composition. Therefore, he ia.
vored printing even larger number than that
proposed in the resolution.
Mr.. STANLEY favored cutting of the less
interesting reports, while he would favor the
printing ofa liberal number of those which were
generally interesting ...
Mr.. MONROE was not particular about the
matter, but he had always favored the printing
of liberal number of German documents. He
Wishedthe question disposed of 80 that the SEN
ate might consider mofe imporfant business.--
He would vote for the report, hoping that he
might thereby assist, In making final disposi-
tion of this matter
Mr.. COX would vote for this report because
he hoped therby to at once dispose of this ques-
ton, which was occupying too much of the Sen
ate's time. In principle he did not favor the re-
solution.
Mr.. SMITH favored the passage of law
that would hereafter regulate the publication Of
public documents in the German language. He
was in favor of printing such documents as were
calculated to disseminate political information
for the Germans.
Mr.. ORR thought the object Of printing the
Message and the Auditors report
only in the German language. was designed to
Q0Ve u poEtlLHQ eutCt. It6 WAS III lhNUE VI
printing all reports and public documents In
that language. He was surprised that the Sen
ator from Portage, (Mr. Garfeld) could not
support bis own bantling. He was afraid that
gentleman was looking after political capital in
the course he was pursuing on this question:
He had o large German constituency, and
would defend their rights upon this floor and
insist upon the printing Of the reports Of State
ofacera for their benefit
The vote on the report of the committee OF
conferences was then taken and resulted-ayes
l9, nays 8.
Mr.. JONES offered the following resolu-
ton:
Rssolued, BY the General Assembl of the State
Of Ohio, three-ftfhs of the members elected
TO each house concurring therein, That 1t be,
and hereby is proposed to the electors of this
State, to vote on the second Tuesday of Octo-
Der, A. D. 1861, upon the approval or rejection
Of the following amendment as O substitute for
section FIVE, Of article four, Of the Constitution,
10 wit:
District courts shall be composed Of two
Judges of the supreme court, and shall be held
In each county In the State at least once In each
year; bat If It shall be found inexpedient to
hold such court annually In each county of any
common pleas district, the General Assembly
may, for such district, provide that said court
shall bold at least three annual sessions therein,
In not less than three places; and the General
Assembly may, BY law, authorize the judges Of
the supreme court to FIX the terms of holding
the district court.
On presenting this resolution, Mr.. JONES
said;
In explanation of this proposition I desire to
say to the Senate, that have introduced IL after
with many eminent members Of
the bar from different parts Of the State, and
with well settled conviction that IL is the
most practical amendment that the public will
be likely to approve, to remedy, to some extent
at least, the defects so generally complained Of
In our present system.
The districts courts as now organised, are, I
believe, everywhere considered unsatisfactory.
To complete the system proposed by this
amendment, 1t will be necessary for the legisla.
ture, after It's adoption, to increase the number
OF the Judges OF the Supreme Court to seven.
With this increase, am assured by some Of the
members Of the court and other gentlemen who
have been Judges of the court, under the Pros
ent Constitution, all the business Of tho Supreme
and District courts can no disposed of without
difficulty.
The advantages expected to be derived from
the proposed amendment, Mr.. Jones claimed to
be: ist. To diminish the number Of cases in the
Supreme Court at least Twenty-Five per cents
Cd. A much more satisfactory and expeditions
disposition Of business in the District Courts
than could be reasonably expected In tribunals
constituted as our district courts now are; 3D..
He contended that the change proposed, while
It would In all respects greatly improve our ju-
dicial system, the improvement would be se-
cured, not only without additional expense to
the State, but would. as he believed, result In
q large curtailment Of the present expenditure.
When the system established by the present
Constitution went into operation, but twenty.