STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES. STATEMENT Of amount of money paid by the State for the purchase of land, the amount of land purchased and its location, and the betterments and improvements on the same, for each and every year from 1852 to 1872, inclusive, for the Benevolent Institutions of Ohio, including, also, the State Penal and Reformatory Institutions, as ascertained from reports made by the superintending officers of the various institutions, and prepared by the Auditor of State, in reply to Resolution No. 68, of the Constitutional Convention, adopted May 7th, 1873. [THURSDAY, STATEMENT-CONTINUED. JULY 31, 1873.] STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES. NOTES (b) Asylum enlarged. (c) includes $15,000 for 71⁄2 acres of land adjoin for new site for 300 acres west of Columbus, the sum of $215,400 was derived from sale of the old site and materials, and from piece of land Central Ohio Lunatic Asylum (a). Cost of old asylum lands and improvements to date was $160,727.17. (a) (a) (a) Includes $2,300 for 56 acres of land at Newburgh. (b) Includes $16,800 for 50 acres at Newburgh. Fifty acres near Dayton, donated to State. (b) For 241⁄2 acres of land. (c) Includes $19,538.12 for 82% acres of land. 150 acres in Athens, Ohio, donated to State. (a) Includes $6,000 for three lots on Oak street, Columbus. (b) Includes $3,750 for one lot on Oak street. (a) Athens (a) Includes $2,500 for two acres of land adjoining old grounds. The institution has 17 acres of land, most of which was bought prior to 1850. (a) 100 acres of land near Xenia, donated to the State. Includes $17,550 for 130 acres of land 12 miles west of Columbus. (b) Includes $7,713.71 for 57% acres of land adjoining original purchase. adjoining the prison. Cost of betterments could not be separated froin current expenses prior to 1859. (b) Includes $20,400 for 8 8-100 acres of land north and (a) For 1,170 acres of land in Hocking township, Fairfield county. (a) (a) For 189 acres of land in Delaware county, known as Ohio White Sulphur Springs property, including extensive frame buildings. AUDITOR OF STATE'S OFFICE,) POWELL, O'CONNOR, HOADLY, VORIS. Mr. POWELL. I move that the communication and statement be laid upon the table and printed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. O'CONNOR. I wish to introduce a Resolution that has been suggested by many prominent members on this side of the House. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Seneca [Mr. O'CONNOR] offers the following Resolution: The SECRETARY read: "Resolution No. 105, by Mr. O'CONNOR: WHEREAS, The frequent absence of one or more of the Sergeants-at-Arms, and, also, the frequent absence of one or all of the Messengers of this Convention, indicate that we either have an excess of employes in each of these departments, or that the position is regarded by them as a mere sinecure; therefore, be it Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Order of Business be required to inquire into the cause of this neglect of duty on the part of employes, and report what portion or number of them may be dismissed from service without detriment to the interests of this Convention, and what measures are necessary to secure the attendance of the residue, as well during the hours of actual session as during reasonable hours of recess." The Resolution was adopted. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Mr. HOADLY. I move that the Convention now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the order of the hour. The motion was agreed to. THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. So the Convention, as in Committee of the Whole, Mr. HITCHCOCK in the Chair, resumed the consideration of Proposition No. 185, being the Report of the Committee on the Judicial Department. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee rose, it had under consideration Proposition No. 185, the question being on the striking out of the word "twelve" from line 1 of section 8. The gentleman from Summit, [Mr. VORIS,] is entitled to the floor. Mr. VORIS. I desire to occupy a short time in presenting a few facts that bear upon the question of the judicial service that has been performed in the State of Ohio, as well as the amount of force that will prospectively be required in that department. I have had occasion, for a number of years, to give at least some attention to the amount of business performed by our courts in the State. In 1860 and 1861, I had the honor of being a representative in the General Assembly of this State; and at that time, believing that we had a larger judicial force than the business interest required, I sought to relieve the public from the burden of carrying supernumerary judges, and to that end I introduced a bill in the General Assembly to reduce the number, which passed through its various stages to the third reading. I presented, as I thought, at that time, such unanswerable arguments in favor of the passage of the bill, that I had no doubt at all but the wisdom of that body, would at once, by a twothirds vote, pass my bill. But I was met at once by the same clamor that is made here in this Committee, that there was a necessity, at least in certain sections of the State, for all the force that was then in existence. And here, permit me to say, that instead of the twenty-seven [THURSDAY, judges who were found sufficient to discharge their duties in the common pleas and district courts at the adoption of the present Constitution, forty-two judges were then in existence, being an increase at that time of fifteen over those supplied by the Constitution. To my utter astonishment, upon the final passage of that bill it failed. It failed, not because of any particular argument being presented for the consideration of the General Assembly, opposed to it, but because the naked facts were not presented to them, so that they could look at them and determine for themselves whether the provision was one that ought to be adopted or not, and because of the suspicion that the force might be needed. I was inexperienced and unknown to the General Assembly. I had no influence over that body, except such as I exerted from my place on the floor. But I concluded there was a remedy for my personal weakness, and I asked at the hands of the General Assembly a resolution requiring the clerks of the various courts of record in the State to transmit to that body a statement of the amount of business that had accumulated upon their dockets, each year, successively, from the commencement of our judicial system under the Constitution down until the close of 1860. And upon the presentation of the facts that were adduced from eighty counties of the State that responded to that resolution, it became apparent to the General Assembly that the judges of the courts of common pleas of the State were not performing the amount of work they ought to were devoting, on an average, to judicial duties, for the year 1860, 128 days, and only 128 days. The number of cases upon the dockets of the various courts of common pleas -Hamilton county and seven others, which did not report-aggregated about the same number of causes pending for trial in 1860, that you find upon these reports for the year 1870. I have taken pains to compare the returns that were made for the year 1860, with those of 1870, and I find thirty-seven counties in the State, for the year 1860, report larger dockets, more cases pending for trial, than were pending in those counties in 1870. Mr. HOADLY. Will the gentleman allow me a question? Mr. VORIS. With pleasure. Mr. HOADLY. Is not the circumstance you speak of entirely accounted for by the fact, that the since the adoption of the Bankrupt Law, old collection cases that used to number so many on our dockets have entirely ceased to exist? Mr. VORIS. I presume that is the fact Mr. HOADLY. If the gentleman will allow me, I will state a fact within my personal knowledge. In the year 1857, more than 2,700 cases were brought in the superior court of Cincinnati, whereas, last year, less than eleven hundred cases were brought; and yet, in my opinion, more time of the court will be necessary to wind up those eleven hundred cases than the twenty-seven hundred cases in 1857, for the reason that a large majority of the twentyseven hundred were mere collection cases, not suits brought to trial. Mr. VORIS. Before I get through, if I think of it, I will try and touch upon that branch of . the question, and refer to some of the causes that I think have tended to diminish rather than increase the amount of litigation in the State. Forty counties in the State had more cases in 1870 than in 1860; but a comparison of the counties to which I have called the attention of the Committee shows that there has been a very slight increase of business in the State during the decade commencing with 1860 and ending with 1870. And, further, the reports to which I have called your attention, show the fact that the increase of business from 1850 to 1860, was a mere fraction. It did not keep pace at all with the increase of population in the State. It is true as a fact-I know no gentleman can bring facts to contradict it, at least-and I assume it from the knowledge I have in relation to the matter, that the increase of business during the last 21 years-the 21 years that the present Constitution has been in effect-has by no means kept pace with the increase of population. The ratio of increase of population is very much greater than the increase of business. I refer gentlemen, if they desire to verify what I have said, to the report of the Committee of the House of Representatives, Fiftyfourth General Assembly, found in the House Journal for the year 1861-in which is given the number of cases that were pending for each year, in the court of common pleas and the district courts, and also the second trial cases, and the number of days the judges occupied in the discharge of their duties in each county so reported.. his part of the State. But in 1862, the act creating the tenth district was repealed, because there was no necessity for its existence. Now, for the amount of business performed by the judges of that district in 1860-the report of the Committee from which I read shows that "In the 10th judicial district, composed of the counties of Seneca, Wyandot, Crawford, Putnam, Wood and Hancock, three common pleas judges labored with commendable zeal to make in the aggregate 237 days labor in the court of common pleas, one of whom had the good fortune to busy himself 66 days in the discharge of his official duties. For the same year, the district court had had assigned for its purposes in the district 24 days, making in the aggregate 261 days of term time for both courts, and an average of 95 days actual service for each of said days; the fourth, 115 days; fifth, 119, and the seventh, 105 judges. The third district showed an average of 118 days; and for the State an average of only 128 days for each common pleas judge." That is the foundation upon which the parties who urged the necessity for the creation of this district, built up their claim. I have examined the returns made here for the years 1870, 1871 and 1872, and I may state from the comparisons I have been able to institute between the legislative reports and our reports of the amount of labor performed by the judges in the State, that the Standing Committee upon the Judicial Department has recommended to this body a sufficient force for the competent discharge of all the duties that will devolve upon the common pleas judges, not only for next year, but for all the ensuing years of the next decade. I will admit that in some sub-divisions, and, perhaps, in some of the districts, at times, there has been a larger amount of business pressure upon the judges than, for the time being, they could perform. But that does not exist by reason of a want of adequate judicial force, but by reason of the mode in which the force is applied. The judges make their own assignments. The lawyers arrange their cases for trial and the people, in the selection of their In 1862, a decline of business manifested itself very considerably in the State on account of the war; and by reason of the facts that were brought to bear upon the General Assembly in this report, six out of the forty-two judges in the State were wiped out, their terms ending at various times during the period of the next en-judicial officers, very frequently select perhaps suing five years. But this provision of the Constitution that confers the power upon the General Assembly to dispense with a judgeship, but still leaves the judge hanging so long as the time for which he was elected, in full force, of course, continued in office these judges until the full expiration of their term. I do not know but it was a good thing; but those who had to pay for it cannot see it in that light. I said that in 1860, 128 days was the average annual service performed by a judge of the court of common pleas, both for the common pleas and district courts. In a few districts in the State the period of service was larger, but that was the average for 1860. But in 1858, to meet a supposed contingency in the northwestern part of the State, the General Assembly constructed a new judicial district, known as the tenth district. The necessity for the construction of an additional district in that part of the State was pressed upon the Legislature. The population had been increasing somewhat rapidly in that section, and gentlemen in the General Assembly urged with as much vehemence the necessity of creating this judicial district as my friend from Clinton [Mr. DOAN] has urged the necessity of having a stronger official force in his part of the State, and as the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. RUSSELL] has urged the necessity of an increase of judges in very meritorious men, but but absolutely unfit for the bench. They do not possess those business qualities essential to give business vigor, force, symmetry and effectiveness to the bench. Business drags, and will continue to drag, just as long as such men are put upon the bench. It is not because they do not have judges enough, but it is because they do not have the right class of men. It is because they do not rightly use the means that the State furnishes for the discharge of these duties. That brings me to consider another question. It is objected here, that we ought not to elect our judges by large districts, that we ought not to group our judges in a district, but elect them in single districts. We have had what is equivalent to single districts for the last twentyodd years. We elect our judges in the sub-divisions, and they understand, and practically it is absolutely true, that they need only perform their judicial offices in their subdivisions so far as the common pleas is concerned. I grant that they go outside for district court duty, but so far as serving upon the bench as common pleas judges is concerned, they are practically separate district judges and do not go out of their subdivisions. This has been the fact so far as I have had any knowledge of the mode in which they have discharged their duties. I know in the county in which I live, it VORIS. has been utterly impossible for us, out of the Practically, then, the relation has been a judge The gentleman from Erie [Mr. Roor] hit the nail on the head this morning, when he said to us that our work here was to fix upon a standard in this provision, and, if it does not give judicial force enough, all you have to do is to ask to have the number increased, and the General Assembly will readily do it. This is so true, that in 1868, eight additional judgeships were created in the State, where, then, there was no real need for them. Somebody thought there was, perhaps. If this system proposed here, is so flexible that, at any time, if the requirement exists demanding an increase of force, the General Assembly may give it, why are gentlemen so anxious to commit the State to a pol [THURSDAY, icy that will give us so large a judicial force at once? The evidence here shows that it is not required. A few gentlemen here say to us that they believe it is needed, but, if we adopt their theory, we are acting upon the mere guess-so of these gentlemen, and against the facts offered here in evidence. These gentlemen who have been urging this thing so earnestly are lawyers, and they ought to know that evidence is what we ought to work upon. We have the evidence before us, and that evidence shows that the provision we are making, or seeking to make here, is abundantly sufficient to fill all the requirements of judicial service in the common pleas, at least for some time to come. I want to make another suggestion, and that is this: that we have been very largely adding to the expenditure of the State for the judicial service of the State. In 1847, we paid less than $25,000 for the judicial force of the State of Ohio. I do not say that that was enough; but in 1847, $25,000 did pay the judiciary for the State. And, if I may believe what my elders have said upon this floor, we had as efficient a judiciary at that time as we have now. When the new Constitution went into effect, in 1851, we increased the expenses of the judiciary from $28,000 or $29,000 to over $51,000. Fifty-one thousand dollars answered the purposes of the State for three or four years, when an increase commenced and continued up to 1860, when we were paying between $70,000 and $75,000, and from that time-the period to which I have called attention-up to 1866, we were paying, as I stated, nearly $75,000; and from that time until to-day, with hardly an iota of increase in the judicial business of the State, we have increased our expenditures to over $160,000 for salaries of the judiciary for 1872. Adopt the system proposed in this substitute, and you necessarily add to that amount. You cannot put it into efficient operation for much less than $200,000. If we have necessarily got to increase the expenses of the judicial department in the State, we should be very careful to fix that increase of expenditure upon such a solid foundation, that we can go to the people and say to them that the necessity exists for this increase, and be able to show it. If you do not do it, if you do not have good reasons to sustain you, the people will repudiate your act. If they do not, they would be unwise and wanting in self-respect. I have made this suggestion with a view to have gentlemen understand here, that it will not do to pile up burdens on burdens in this proposition, unless they be such as the business interests of the State require. I think it has been manifested here that they are not required, and not being required, we certainly would be acting unwisely if we put them in. I do not know but a little outside evidence might have some effect upon gentlemen upon this floor. I was conversing, a few moments ago, with a gentleman upon this floor, a delegate to this Convention, who has honored the bench for ten years, and in one of those districts too, where they demanded an additional judgeship and got it from the General Assembly, at a time when he would have gladly added two additional counties to his sub-division upon his shoulders, if he could have increased the pay in propor |