The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1877-08-17
THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION
al ANENDNENT.

alnendent to the Constitution of Ohio.
''reorganizing the judiciary" and
which has been advertised in the pa
pers all over the State for a number of
weeks, and / suppose will continue to
appear until after the fall election.
Notwithstanding the extensive publ
cation by all the county papers
throughout the State, and the import
ance of the matter, there seems to be a
concerted silence by all these editors
and Others whose duty it should be to
comment on such matters, not to say a
word either as to the comparative mer-
its or demerits of the old Constitution
and the proposed amendment. Are
the people expected to receive and
ratify this amendment without ques-
ton, and as a matter of course, as
being in every particular more desira-
BILE than the old!
In view of the facts that the people
are asked to pass upon the merits of
this amendment, to our fundamental
law, at the next election-and that it
seems to be the chief object of our la W
makers to obscure language by the
multiplicity of ambiguous words and
technicalitles-and that there are not
a few simple, unsophisticated people
throughout the community, who
would be glad to know just hOD to
vote on this amendment. and who are
little inquisitive to know at whose
instance this resolution was introduced
into our late Legislature, and for
whose benefit all this expense of ad-
vertising it, and who are anxious to
know tDherein the proposed amend
ment is an improvement upon the old
| nstitutior-whether it will tend to
diminish litigation, secure speedier
| justice to litigaDts, lessen our taxes,
| and reduce the number of our lawyers
this amendment shonld be ventilated.
These are considerations in which all
are interested, and a pr, position to
change our Constitution, under which
we have lived and prospered for gen
Grafton, is serious matter, and should
not be attempted without due care
and deliberation, and when attempted
should be submitted to an enlightened
ard intelligent vote.
1t is understood that laws should be
the means of securing the greatest
good to the greatest number
Now if this amendment will
do this better and more certainly and
speedily than the old, then it should
be adopted by all means, but if it is in
tended to serve the interests of Ger
tain class only, then the people should
put the veto on it so emphatically that
our Constitution makers will hereafter
be careful what they present to the
people for ratification. it is not time
out of mind when the people of Ohio
! thought they needed a new Constitu-
ton and elected a convention to make
one, for which they paid roundly, but
after it came from the hands of that
body of Savants, on being submitted
to the Judgment of the people, they
decided it was not just what they
wanted and rejected it, preferring to
live under the old, which they had
tried.
Now, Mr.. Editor, it seems to me
that the tCay this amendment is sub
Initted to be voted upon lie a trick-if
the whole thing is not fraud-calcu
lated to be carried by default-through
the indifference of the people-as was
the one few years ago, and if thus
carried it will be for want of informa
ton on the subject.
Mr.. Editor, we read the papers for
information, and perhaps you, or some
one else would deign to give your
readers some light Oh this whole mat
ter, informing US what there is in this
proposed amendment that should com
mend it TO our favorable attention.
Amending Constitutions should not be
done elandestinely by few, but such
matters should be presented to the
people openly and honestly, fairly and
squarely, and fully explained 60 that
each voter may vote understanding!y.
ONE OF EN-.
August Sth, 1877.
Our correspondent alludes to the
fact of the very general publication of
the proposed amendment, and yet con
ciudes his remarks with the sentence:
''sueh matters should be presented to
the people openly and honestly, fairly
and squarely.' We doubt if anything
were ever more openly submitted to
the people than the proposition allud
ed to. 1t spublished in every county,
and in both political papers, SO that no
one need be ignorant of its PROPOSE |
tions, or be misled by missratements OF
interested parties. The fact that edi
tors do not call more attention 10 Ii Is
simply because they are willing to trust
the intelligence of the people upon
this matter, and allow them to decide !
upon it without any attempt to bias
their judgment politically, it being a
matter so essentially non-partizan.
Some will prefer the present system of
courtsI Others, and we think much the
larger number will prefer the propos-
ed change, because, it will, on the
whole, lessen the number of public |
officers required, and not materially
increase the expenses of conducting
courts of justice. Because, also, in
stead of three terms of court per
year, there will be a continuous term,
WHICH will always keep the docket
clear and administer prompt Justice
both to litigants and rogues Eho re-
quire its Offices. at present the Pro
bate Court, as court of justice, is no
better than a justices court. Take
any matter which is contested before
the Probate Judge. and 1t stops not
there. 1t will go to the Common
Pleas, for adjudication, no matter how
equitable the decision in the Probate
Court may have been. The PROPOSE
ton is, simply, to dispense with the
Prcbate Court, and to substitute in its
place a court competent to exercise,
conformity, the functions of both the
Common Pleas and Probate Courts.
TO be open at all times for the perform
ance OF such business as is now per
formed By the Probate Court, and at
Lhe same time to sit as a Court of
common Pleas. 1t will not retard the
execution of probate business, but eX
pediate the business of the Common
Pleas. Litigants will not be obliged