The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1877-08-09
The PROMISED Constitutions, Amendments


and every voter, before its submission
to the people ut the approaching cleo
ton.
In considering the same, we should
compare the present system with the
proposed one, and ascertain which is
the better-and not reject Il proposed
system because we object to some fea-
turc of it. 1t is probable to say the
least, that no judicial system can ever
be devised by wisdom or ingenuity, i'll
which majority of the voters of our
State will not discover defects.
Article four, See. l of the constitu-
ton vests the judicial power of the
State in Supreme Court, in District
Courts, Courts of Common Pleas, Pro-
bate Courts, and Justices Courts. The
General Assembly also has power to
establish other Courts inferior to the
Supreme Court, which it has exercised
in establishing inferior Courts i'll some
of the large cities of the State. BY
section three the State is divided into
nine Common Pleas Districts. Each
OF said districts, consisting of three or
more Counties, is sub-divided into
three paris, in each of which one or
more Judges of the Common Pleas
Court is elected by the voters of said
subdivision.
District Courts are composed of the
Judges of the Common Pleas Courts,
and one of the five Judges of the SD
preme Court, any three of whom con-
stitute a quorum, and hold District
Court at least once year i'll each
County in the District. In years past,
when the population of our State was
much less than at the present time, and
when the duties of the Supreme Court
were comparatively light, one of the
Supreme Judges of the State was to be
found sitting ut each District Court.
| As the business in the Supreme Court
rapidly increased, it became impractic-
able for the Judges of this Court to at
tend the different District Courts; con-
sequentiy these last named Courts
have been for several years composed
of Common Pleas Judges alone. In
the opinion of many, it was the inten-
| ton of the trainers of the Constitution
| to provide for Supreme Judge III each
and all District Courts to be held III
the state. That there is Il want of con-
fidence in District Courts, as now COM
posed, of Common Pleas Judges alone,
must be evident to every observing
mind. That the Judges composing said
Courts confirm to I certain extent the
legal opinions of each other AS pro-
nounccd in the lower Courts, is the
subject of frequent remark. An OBJ
| jective feature in our District Courts is
| that they hold but one session each
| wear in the different Counties, thereby
producing great delay to litigants.
Litigation has largely increased III
our State since the adoption of our
present Judicial system. Most OF the
| Common Pleas Courts of the State are
| burdened with Il business which they
are Inadequate to discharge. Our peo-
pie are deferred from applying to the
Court for aid in procuring for them
Justice, for the reasOn that there Is Il
great uncertainty rs 10 when their cas-
es will be finally disposed of. But Three
sessions of this Court are held each
year, and nearly all business transact
ed therein must be at 4 regular term
thereof. Parties having actions. pend
ing in one of these Courts attend du-
ring IL regular term thereof, from day
to day-periiaps with scores OF wit
nesses-at great expense, probably To
be informed by their attorneys, at the
Adjournment of said Court, that their
cases 80 will not be reached" but must
go over until the next term thereof;
or, if reached during term, it is after
great expense had been incurred by all
parties, in consequence of attending
with witnesses from day to day, await
ing trial. How much better would be
the proposed system, with the Com
mon Pleas Court in session at all times.
and prepared to try causes whenever
litigants are desirous to do so. Under
the present system, jurors are required
to attend the Court three, four, five,
and perhaps six weeks, at great ex-
pense to the people, when perhaps no
more than half dozen jury cases will
be disposed of during the entire term.
Under the proposed system, in our
opinion, the expense of juries for Com
mon Pleas Courts will be materially
lessened. BY the proposed system
Courts of Probate are abolished, and
their duties deyolve upon the Courts OF
Common Ple:,s-and this is certainly
one of the IL features of the system.
We venture the opinion, that nine
tenths of all persons who have been
elected to the office of Probate Judge
in this State have proven to be wholly
incompetent to pass upon most impor-
tant legal questions submitted to them.
I'm fact, the legal opinions of Probate
Judges generally, to-day. find but little
respect in the minds of any, except
from those from whom these opinions
emanate.
We submit that the duties of our
Probate Courts viii be discharged by
the proposed Courts of Common Pleas
with greater satisfaction to the people
at large, more in accordance with law
and justice, and without, in the least,
impairine the standing of our present
Common Pleas Courts.
We hope that the electors of the
State, as a unit, will give the proposed
amendment due consideration, and
when voting to adopt or reject the
same, will vote understandingly.
We have observed heretofore, that
many persons have voted TO reject Il
proposed amendment II our constitu-
ton for the reason that members of tlae
legal profession were generally friend
ly TO such an amendment, or vice versa.
We regret that such feelings should be
entertained by any. No class of peo
pie i'll our State have better opportuni-