Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1881-03-24
JUDICIAL REFORM.

JUDICIAL REFORM.
EDITOR CHRONICLE-I was pleased
with your editorial under the above
heading in last weeks issue; not so
much, indeed, on account of the view of
the subject therein expressed, but from
a settled conviction that this important
question which is now pressing itself
upon the people of Ohio, and which must
continue to force itself into prominence
until some satisfactory remedy shall be
found for the manifest and growing
evils of our judiciary system, should be
fully discussed and understood by all in
telligent voters. The people of Ohio are
conservative in regard to changes in
their fundamental law; and they are
wisely so. A constitution, being the
charter of peoples liberties-the law
by which they rule their rulers and gov
ern their governorS-shOuld never be
changed in the slightest particular, until
such change is an imperative necessity ;
and when an evil exists which it is ne
cessary to remove, the remedy proposed
should be closely scanned and fully con-
sidered in all its bearings. In the pres
ent case, grave evils are admitted to ex-
ist by all who are familiar with the prac-
tical workings of our judiciary system.
The only question is as to which of the
two remedies proposed, if either, will
most effectually remove these evils
without producing other evils instead.
Without advancing an opinion upon
this point, allow me TO offer a criticism
upon the editorial above referred to, rel
ative to the objection made therein to
the plan of judicial reform proposed by
the State Bar Association. Speaking of
the proposal to abolish the district and
to increase the number of supreme court
judges to nine, requiring two or more of
the supreme judges to hold q special
term of the supreme court in each coun-
ty once in each year, the writer says:
The objection to this plan is that the
." judges when sitting in general term,
" might feel called upon to leg for their
decisions upon the circuit, and then the
court would be no better, in that re-
aspect, than our present district court"
If this is the worst objection than can
be offered to the plan proposed by the
State Bar Association, then that plan
should certainly be adopted. The same
objection was once offered to our Fed
eral judiciary system, but our wisest ju-
rists have pronounced it groundless.
Is there any complaint that Judge
Waite, or J ddge Harlan, or Judge Mill
er, or any other justice of our Federal
Supreme Court, legs in banc for his de-
decisions upon the circuit? Does any
one fear that Judge McIlvaine, or Judge
0key, or any other of our present judg-
es of supreme court would leg at the
sitting in banc for his decisions upon the
circuitP No sensible suitor would fear
injustice from such source.
But admitting the objection valid as
to the Federal system. it does not apply
to the plan proposed by the State Ear
Association. That plan does not con-
template circuit col:rt, but instead pro-
vides for special terms of the supreme
court in each county. Section of the
proposed amendment reads: Especial
terms of the supreme court shall be
q held by not less than two judges in
leach county of the State at least once
ain each year; and the court, at such
special terms, shall have the same OF.
"iginal jurisdiction as the whole court
" at general terms, and such appellate
+" jurisdiction as may be provided by law
and may render final judgment there.
sin, subject, however, to review by the
/" court at general term upon questions
"of law involved therein, in such man.
" ner and subject to such restrictions as
"may be provided by law; 6s.t no judge
" soho has participated in the ren6ition of sucn
" "jatdgnLents at spec al term shall sit won s,tci
:" re0ieu."
The effect of the above section, in the
event of its adoption, would not be to
establish another court inferior to the
supreme court, but to bring the supreme
court itself, with all its prestige and
weight of authority as court of final
resort, into each county of the State.
This supreme court sitting in special
term in any comfy, may render final
judgment" subject, it is true, toreview
by the whole court in banc; but the
court so sitting in special term would
not be obliged to render final judgment
in all cases, but would be authorized to
reserve cases involving difficult ques-
tions of law, to be disposed of at general
term. The practical working of this
plan would be. apprehend, that the
court at special terms would make final
disposition of vast majority of the
numerous cases which involve only the
application of well-settled principles of
law-which in general ought not to be
permitted to burden the docket of su-
preme court-and would reserve for de-
cision at general term all cases involv-
ing doubt and difficulty-such cases as
ought to occupy the attention of SUI
preme court in banc. delicate matter
over which the supreme court of Ohio
has at present no control, being obliged
to consider whatever cases the lawyers
see fit to bring up from the court be-
low"
1t was thought by large majority of
the members of the State Bar Associa-
tion that this plan of bringing the su-
premecourt, with all itsprestige as court
of final resort, into such county, would
effectually check the mass of drift
wood" which is continually pouring into
the supreme court under the present
system, as no court of less weight of au-
thority could do; and that thus the sys-
tenn proposed would remedy effectuaally
the greatest evil of the existing system.
The logging objection was fully cOnsid-
cred and discussed, both by the commit
tee of eminent jurists who drafted the
Plan, and in the general meeting of the
Association. After the closest and most
exacting criticism of the scheme. the As
sociation was largely of the opinion that
the objection was not entitled to much
weight.
In my judgment, the plan submitted
by the Bar Association, though far from
perfect in some respects, is not seriously
liable to the objection. and that it stands
inspection remarkably well, and 1, for
one, would welcome full aud complete