Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1912-08-30
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWYER OF ELYRIA
MAKES SERIOUS OBJECTIONS TO
THE AMENDMENTS EFFECT
ING DECISIONS OF JUDGES.
JUDGE W. W. BOYNTON
Says Provisions for Change in the
Judiciary Are Vague In Meaning,
and Show Little Discrimination
Thece Are Mighy Words, Says
the Plain Dealer.

tHe ram OcdIeT.
Columbus o., Aug. 20.-(Special.)
Probably no man in Ohio is better
able to offer sound and unprejud.ced
advice to the voters in connection
with the AZ proposed constitutional
amendments which will be submitted
for rejection or approval at the spe-
ctal election on September 8, than
Judge w. w. Boynton of Elyria.
Judge Boynton is former Judge
of the Ohio Supreme Court. He is
one of the ablest lawyers in the
state. He retired from active prac-
tice several years ago. He has no
clients nor personal nor selfish inter-
ests to serve. His opinion on any
public question Is, therefore, un-
biased by personal prejudice or am
bition. His advice is prompted sole.
ly by desire to serve the welfare
of all the people of the state.
He believes that practically every
amendment should be rejected by the
voters. While lack of space has pre-
vented the Judge from discussing in
detail all of the amendments and
pointing out the serious evils in
volved in their adoption, he gives
some idea of the character of the
most OF the amendments by analyz-
ing and exposing the crudities and
dangers of these proposals relating
to changes in the judicial system of
the state.
Referring to the judicial amend.
ments, Judge Boynton said, in brief:
Failure to attend the election and
vote against the whole scheme will
be a source of lasting regret to the
people when they wake up and find
out what they have established.
Section 2 of the judicial article,
prescribing the number of judges
that are to constitute the supreme
court, declares that the court shall
consist of six judges and chief JUS
tee. But no provision whatever is
made for the election of the chief JUS
tice. nor Is the legislature authorized
to cure the omission.
But more serious objection to
this section relates to decisions
where the judges are equally divided
in opinion. A court is created con
sisting of seven judges, with q provi
sion that If equally divided in opin
ion on the merits of case, the judg
ment below shall stand affirmed
How can there be an equal division
with seven judges sitting?
But more vital objection to the
judicial scheme of the proposed con
stitution relates to the distribution
of jurisdiction among the various
courts. In expressed language this
scheme takes from the citizen the
right now possessed of the judgment
of the supreme court, and limits him
to the judgment of four men In the
lower. courts, with possible dissent
of one of the four. An action that
may involve all that he possesses
may be the earnings of lifetime Ii
required to be brought in the
court of common pleas. The case
may here be tried, appeal taken tc
the court of appeals and judgment
given by a divided court. This
under the proposed jurisdiction, Il
the end of the matter. No matter
how vital to the party, or how vas
his interest, or how much involved
or how full of error the judgment IL
the court of appeals may be, or how
manifest the error, there is no relic
from the erroneous judgment. Wha
q parody on justice!
"Other provisions of the judicia
article of the proposed constitution
are so vague in meaning as to shov
that little discrimination was mad,
or regarded between what ought t,
go into the organic law and wha
ought to be left to the legislature"
Speaking editorially of the views o
Judge Boynton, which were original
ly published at greater length in tn
Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Youngs
town Vindicator, the leading Demo
cratic newspaper in the Mahonin
valley, says:
"These are weighty words, comin
as they do from one who was neve
q corporation lawyer, and who fron
his retirement speaks the word O
sober counsel to his fellow citizen
on a subject of first Importance t
them"