Ottawa County news. (Port Clinton, Ohio) 1931-1956, 1953-02-06
Text Of Representatives
Talk On New Code Bill

(EQlC0r'S NOCc: Inc FOLLOWING
speech was delivered by Rep. Rob
ert w. Reider of Ottawa County
on the floor of the House of Rep
resentatives during the course of
debate on the code revision bill
which is now being considered by
the Ohio Senate. Earlier, Rep.
Reider had received a resolution
from the Ottawa County Bar Asso-
ciation opposing the bill by an 3
to 2 vote).
AS a layman and a third-term
member Of this House, I have
the highest respect and regard for
members of the Judiciary Com
mittee but after a careful review
of the facts surrounding this bill
I am compelled to rise in oppos-
ition.
Let me first of all point out
that this bill definitely is not a
partisan measure. It is not one
in which Party lines should be
drawn. The question resolves
itself on only one point is it
good for the State of Ohio in its
present form?
I favor recodification, but not
in the manner it is being accom-
pliShed at this time.
I am very much alarmed by the
haste with which the leadership is
pushing this bill in contrast with
the customary deliberate, method
ical legislative procedure.
Obviously there has been an
express flag" put on this bill and
/ don't Like it. A good many peo-
pie in Ohio just ordinary
folks = don't like it. A good many
more wouldn't like it if they rea-
lized what is being attempted here
today.
I am firmly convinced that a
majority of people in this state
want to see Ohio's code revised
and brought up to date. ! am just
as firmly convinced that they want
to see the job done properly !
that they want no part of a half
done hurry-up job.
Frankly, I have no faith in the
so-called savings clause" on which
the proponents seem to place so
much emphasis. To me the "sav-
ings clause" is just a booby-trap.
It's a face-saver for those who
would justify their support of this
measure without taking the time
to thoroughly weed out all of the
errors that admittedly are in the
bill.
It seems incredible to me that
after seven years work by the
code revision committee that the
House Judiciary Committee after
only three weeks review can con-
scientiously give measure as i'm
portant as this one the green light
and recommend its passage to this
House.
/ didn't have an opportunity to
read the amendments until they
were placed upon my desk this
haven't had a chance
to study them and I doubt if any
of the rest of you can honestly
say that you have.
Consequently I see no urgency
for haste. The code revision COM
mittee has studied Sc million
words and reduced $4,000 sections
to 10000 sections during its six
year study.
The amendments we're blindly
considering today represent only
the vested interests who have had
enough money to send represent
atives before the committee with
carefully prepared arguments to
protect themselves.
The very fact that many Sec
tions, after objections were raised.
were reinstated in their entirety
in itself is an admission that the
bill is full of errors. This is a
classic example of The People
versus Powerful Special Interests.
Who has represented the aver
age citizen who can't afford a
lawyer or lobbyist? Who looked
after the interests of John @. Pub
lie before the committee?
At best the Judiciary Committee
could have studied only a small
percentage of the sections involved.
What about the thousands of other
sections affecting Mr.. Average
Citizen? How will the so-called
Savings Clause protect him?
The mere fact that there are so
many am n d m MT is reason
enough alone to delay action.
Obviously the bill is full of
errors. In many instances, the
revisers have changed the meaning
OF the statutes by substituting one
word for another. In number of
instances the word shall" has
been substituted for may" there
by changing the entire meaning
of many laws.
/ ask you to think Of the poten-