The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-09-20
VIEWS OF THOS. HAYS, ESQ.
On the Proposed Constitutional
Amendment.
HIS REASONS FOR SUPPORTING
THE SAME;
CARRoLLroN, O., Sept. 1, 1877.

In the last nuilpCl W yOui P"P"'
observe an article copied from the Gin
cinnad Volksblatt entitled "constitu~
tional amendment of the Judicial SysN
tenn" wherein the editor takes grounds
against the proposed amendment. The
only objection that paper makes, de-
Tended by any argument. is that the
proposed amendment will be more ex-
pensive to the taxpayer or the State
than the present judicial system. 1t
does not say that the judicial system of
our State does not need amending nor
does it advocate the present system,
except that it says the old system is
less expensive than the proposed one
would be. The argument that the
CHEAPEST is the BEST is contradicted
by every day experience, and does not
need any refutation. The question is,
does the judicial system of Ohio need
amending And if so, is the proposed
amendment an improvement on the old
system.
Ist. The judicial system of our pres.
ent constitution was adopted in 1851
when the population Of Ohio was about
800, 900, and when it might be said
that Ohio was only an agricultural State.
There we're but few lines Of Railroads
through the State, the mineral wealth
had not been developed and manufac>
lures were in their infancy. The obs
ect of that system was to link the Com>
mon Pleas, District, and Supreme
Courts together; by making the Cons
mon Pleas Judges, Judges also within
their districts of the District Court in
connection with one of the Supreme
Judges; and thereby give the District
Courts almost as much force and res
spect for their opinions as the Supreme
Court had; besides the District Court
was intended as an appellate court where
a party could appeal any case tried in
the Common Pleas Court TO the District
Court In.I85S cases had accumulated
to such an extent in the District Court
that it was almostimpossible to get along
with the business, and the Legislature re-
pealed the law allowing appeals in all
Jury trials and granted in its stead sec.
ond trial in the Common Pleas. This
stripped the District Court of almost all
its appellate jurisdiction and made it but
little more than a court Of error. But
that was not all: in 1870 by act of the
legislature the Judges of the Supreme
Court were virtually relieved from attend
ance at the sessions ofthe District Courts
by reason of the accumulation of busi-
ness in the Supreme Court; and in 1875
it was proclaimed that the Supreme Court
was five years behind its docket, and an
amendment to the constitution was pass
ed establishing Supreme Court Com~
mission of five additional judges. With
the facts already stated itmust be appar-
ent to every discerning mind that Ohio
has outgrown her judicial sysetm. With
a population off $4,000 in 1850, she has
now a population of over 5000, 900, and
by the development of her mineral
wealth, her railroads, and her manufac-
lures, her legal business has increased
four fold from what it was in 1851. Our
Supreme Court has had to be duplicated;
our District Court is shorn of every good
quality it ever possessed; and our Cons
mon Pleas Court, by reason of it holding
but three sessions in year,is blockaded
with business. am informed by one of
the members OF the Legislature that last
winter there were no less than eighteen
applications from various parts of the
State for additional Common Pleas Judg
es. All of these applications were reject.
ed by the legislature and in lieu thereof
an amendment was proposed to the Con-
stitution remodeling the judiciary system.
All the acts passed by the legislature to
relieve the courts although they have
in some instances almost denied suitors
iustice-have failed to relieve the partic.
ular courts for which they were intended,
and to-day our Common Pleas Courts
are as thoroughly blockaded as they were
four years ago, and in many counties
more new cases 60 on the docket in one
year than there are old ones disposed of.
1t may be said that the legislature has
power to create additional Common
Pleas Judges. So it has, but that will not
relieve the difficulty except SO far as the
Common Pleas is concerned What is
required, is some court between the Com.
mon Pleas and Supreme Courts which
will not be a judicial farce and will com.
mand the respect Of the people. The
present District Court IS not that one nor
can it be made any better except by
change in the Constitution Of the State.
I'd. Is the proposed amendment an
improvement onthe present judicial sys.
TEN? The V0ikS6lat says, "This pro.
amendment contains all the bad features
and many worse than the article on the
Judiciary in the new Constitution, which
was defeated by 10000 votes" | entire
ly differ with this paper in regard to the
estimate it puts on the judiciary system
of the new Constitution" which the peo>
pie voted down. l consider the judicial
article of that Constitution the best that
aVaS e0er Presented to the bsoble Of tile
State, and am satisfied that had it been
presented separately it would not have
been defeated by any such majority. This
amendment, while there are in it many
or the same or similar provisions Of the
judicial article of the defeated Constitu-
ton, attempts to guard against the seems
ing objection to that system by making
it less expensive. In the defeated Cons
stitution there was Probate, Common
Pleas, Circuit, and Supreme Courts. In
the present amendment the Probate and
Common Pleas Courts are merged togeth.
er. The Circuit Court of the defeated
Constitution was to consist Of seven dis
tricts and three judges to each district
making in all 81 Circ,it Judges. The
present amendment proposes 20 districts
with one judge in each ~ the first the
judges of the Circuit Couf we're to hold
court at least twice a year IN each county
ofthe State. In the present amendment
the District Judges hold court at least
three times in each county per year. The
defeated Constitution commanded the
Common Pleas Court to hold quarterly
sessions, while this amendment makes