So the amendment was not agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee has now passed through the various provisions, excepting sections 8 and 9. Fity judges, residing in their respective districts, shall be elected by the electors thereof, as follows: Five in Hamilton county; three in Cuyahoga county; two in Montgomery county; two in Franklin county; two in Lucas county; and the remaining thirty-six judges in such districts, respectively, as the General Assembly may provide. Courts of common pleas shall be held by one or more of these judges, in every county of the district, as often as may be provided by law, and more than one sitting thereof may be held at the same time in any district." Mr. CLAY. This Committee has refused to abolish the probate court and will retain it as heretofore. It has refused to increase the jurisdiction of the probate court, so that the probate court will remain the same probate court as we have had heretofore. This Committee also has refused to establish county courts, which has been urged by a number of gentlemen upon this floor, and I have no doubt but the Convention will acquiesce in the acts of this Committee, because of the unanimity with which these various questions have been disposed of. There remains but little now to be done. lazy and they have not performed their duty, that they have held court only 159 days in a year, I certainly must say that that is not the case in the locality where I reside, and where I practice law. Mr. HOADLY. And the fourteenth. The CHAIRMAN. The fourteenth has been In Montgomery county, we have a superior acted upon by the motion of the gentleman court, but for nearly fifteen years the State, from Clinton, [Mr. DOAN], to strike out both while it paid the common pleas judges, paid the fourteenth and fifteenth sections. The them but $2,500; they only gave us $1,500 out of motion of the gentleman from Montgomery, the State treasury, and the county of Montgom[Mr. CLAY], after section 7, was before the Com-ery paid her own judge sufficient to make the mittee, and was passed by, because the amend- salary $2,500. Only within the last two years ment he proposes had not been printed. It is has the State seen that that was unjust, and now printed, and is substantially, perhaps, where a superior court judge was absolutely section 8. The gentleman proposes to strike necessary in the county of Montgomery, they out section 7, and insert section 8, as follows: have agreed to pay $2,500, so that we might be "The State shall be divided into fifteen common pleas able to get the right kind of a judge upon the districts, of which the counties of Hamilton, Cuyahoga, bench; but when we have to pay $1,000 out of Montgomery, Franklin and Lucas shall each constitute the treasury, towards his salary, you will see one, of compact territory, bounded by county lines, and as nearly equal in population as practicable, having due that the superior court is not so much a luxury regard to business. to Montgomery county, and that question of repealing the superior court judge law has come up in the Legislature every session, almost-time and again. We are not going to continue that judgeship, but this Convention can do nothing with that-it is the Legislature must repeal that law. We are now endeavoring to erect a judicial system for the future-it is to last for some time to come, and while I tender this substitute, it is not intended as an opposition to this report of the Judicial Committee-it looks to sustaining them-it recognizes their system-it is in no spirit of opposition, and I only ask that this Committee of the Whole, and the Convention, will make such provision as will enable the people throughout the State to have a sufficient number of judges to transact the business that is required. It violates no particular principle. The Judiciary Committee recognize the right to name certain counties as special districts. The county of Hamilton is a separate district, and the county of Cuyahoga is a separate district. Now, then, to follow up that very principle, I have introduced, substituting three other counties, as separate districts, and I only speak for the county of Montgomery, because the gentlemen from the other counties may speak for themselves. I recognize in these three counties three growing cities, with a concentration of capital and increase of business, and while all need relief, I speak for Montgomery county. Montgomery county must have two common pleas judges to do her business. I will leave it to the gentlemen from Franklin and from Lucas to say whether they need them or not. If they do not, that will decrease the number of judges which will be required. Again, suggestions have been made to me that Cuyahoga county would be willing to do with two common pleas judges; that will reduce the number again. I do not know whether they will do that or not, but it has been suggested to to me. It has been suggested that Hamilton county would do with four instead of five. If that be so, that will again reduce the number; if Franklin county will agree to do with one, if Lucas county think they can get along with one, all right, or if they desire to be attached to some county, all right; but I speak for Montgomery county. I will leave it for them to say how they desire to have that. I have made this suggestion because I supposed it to be right, I The action of this Committee upon section 8, is not so much a matter of principle now as it is a matter of calculation. It may be done with paper and pencil. The Judiciary Committee have, during the discussion of this proposition, time and again said, that whenever the Committee were satisfied that an increase of court of common pleas judges was necessary, that it should be given. I have relied upon these promises, and I believe that the Committee will be sufficiently liberal to increase the judges of the court of common pleas to the extent that it is necessary. We have now come to the question of the court of common pleas. We have the same number of probate judges, and while in some parts of the State, as we have learned during this discussion, they have too many judges, it is certain that in other localities the people have not been so fortunate. I know gentlemen still adhere to these printed statistics, which have been furnished, and which have been found to be erroneous, very inaccurate, wholly unreliable in every particular. They should be disregarded the same as you would a witness who will lie in one particular thing, the judge will tell the jury they may disregard his entire testimony. That is the way with most of the statistics, and yet gentlemen adhere to them, and when I am told that our judges are CLAY. supposed it to be liberal, and as the Judiciary Committee have offered to be liberal, I thought I would be liberal in my proposition. If Franklin county will get along with one judge, that reduces it one; Lucas the same; and if Hamilton county will lop off one, and Cuyahoga county one, that will reduce my number down to fortysix. Then the proposition names those five counties as separate districts. In every one of those five counties there are reasons for it, and then it leaves it to the General Assembly to properly distribute the remaining judges throughout the State; and I should imagine that the gentlemen from Summit and Belmont, who have too many, will rush to the Legislature, and surrender up their surplus judges. So much the better if they do that; other parts of the State who have suffered will then be relieved. I am called upon to give some evidence as to the necessity for the judges I ask for. I may say to a number of the gentlemen upon this floor, they have seen the action of the bar of Montgomery county, and when I came into this Convention I came instructed by that bar to contend for county courts; but finding that that is an impossibility, I despaired of that long since. I have submitted the report of the Committee to the bar. You have seen the action of the bar, and this proposition is endorsed by the Committee appointed by that bar, because it has been submitted to them, and when I speak in behalf of this proposition, I speak the voice of the bar of Montgomery county. I have procured also some evidence, with the certificate of the clerk of the court of Montgomery county over it. I believe the seal of the court is not attached, but I know the handwriting and it is genuine. I received it by mail. It is short and I will read it: "I, JOHN F. SINKS, clerk of the court of common pleas and superior court of Montgomery Co., do hereby certify that 806 cases were commenced in, and 813 cases finally disposed of, by said courts, in 1872." [WEDNESDAY, court, and five commissioners for the next three years, for the purpose of disposing of these 500 cases. We have one superior court judge in Montgomery county. We have one common pleas judge who holds court, and he has to hold court in the other counties also, and 700 and odd cases on the docket. True, the cases in the supreme court are all litigated cases, but some of them have but one question in them and do not require a great deal of time. Some of our cases on the docket will be disposed of without a great deal of time, while others require a great deal of time. the supreme court, and five commissioners to cases on the civil docket, and the criminal busi- Now, I would like to know from those gentlemen who have said our judges were lazy, whether that shows that no work has been done? These are civil cases, remember, of the dockets of the superior court and common pleas. The criminal business is disposed of besides, and our probate court has jurisdiction and disposes of minor criminal offenses. The court of common pleas has, in addition to this, disposed of the criminal business. Then the cases I have but little more to say. I do not intend pending for trial certified are 786, on the 20th to talk to this Committee-I do not see the neof June, 1873. Case No. 5,941, Sesher against a cessity of it. I hope that gentlemen of this certain railroad company, was begun December Convention will fall in with the liberality of 2, 1871, and has never been reached in regular this Judiciary Committee, and say that you genorder for trial. I happen to know, because I am tlemen of Montgomery county, and such other personally present and practice in the court localities where population, business, and the myself, that the superior court commenced its concentration of capital require it, shall be term the first Monday of October last and held supplied with the necessary amount of judges court every month regularly until the 4th day and judicial force, not for the bar alone, but of July following, and on the 5th day of July for the people. Why have a splendid suresumed business as I have exhibited here, and preme court, and a commission to relieve I am aware, too, that that judge has labored so the supreme court, and a hard that he has broken down his health, and which also relieves the supreme court to a cercircuit court has been compelled ere now to seek refuge some- tain extent, and have an insufficient number of where, in order to recuperate his health during common pleas judges right where all the busithe summer season. Gentlemen here, have re-ness is commenced-a court where the people cited the number of cases on the docket of the supreme court; I believe they are less than 500, and yet there must be five judges of the supreme may go and get redress readily? If you have no court of common pleas, how are you going to get cases into the supreme court? If you re JULY 23, 1873.] Clay, AndrewS, HITCHCOCK, GREENE, HOADLY, Bishop. strict the judges down to a small number and compel the people to compromise and settle their cases, and get along the best way they can, then, after a while, the supreme court will have but little to do, and it will be a very small task to be a supreme court judge. But if you furnish the people, who demand it, with the courts they desire and must have, the whole system will work very well. I hope gentlemen will not apply their strictures to Montgomery county. Those statistics which say our judges have labored but one hundred and fifty-nine days are certainly wrong. I know the judge of the superior court was not idle one day from the first Monday of October until the fourth day of July, and returned to work on the fifth of July. Gentlemen can count how many days that is. As to Judge Elliott, our common pleas judge: I believe these statistics say he has held court one hundred and twenty-six days in 1872. That is certainly an error. I know that judge to be a faithful, ardent laborer, a new judge, too, but he is the most faithful laborer upon the bench. Every day the people can possibly hold him in Montgomery county, they do, but he is called to Butler and other counties to hold court elsewhere, and the statistics cannot be correct, because I believe he has labored nearly twice as many days. There is a difference, too, in judges; some judges may dispatch business more readily than others, but that is not their fault, that is in their creation: men differ in that, as they do in other respects. that by the kindness of the Convention, he ob- IN CONVENTION. Whole have continued their consideration of Mr. HITCHCOCK. The Committee of the is Mr. GREENE. I offer a Resolution which it desirable should be considered at this time. The Resolution was read by the SECRETARY, as follows: Resolution No. 99: Resolved, That the Committee upon Printing and Publication be instructed to cause Propositions of Amendments, introduced by members of the Convention, to be published with the Debates and Proceedings. Mr. HOADLY. I give notice that I will discuss that Resolution. The PRESIDENT. The Resolution will lie over under the Rule. Mr. BISHOP. I move that the Convention Mr. ANDREWS. It is now six o'clock, and do now adjourn. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to state to the Committee, before vacating the Chair, The motion was agreed to; and the Convention (at six o'clock and five minutes P. M.) adjourned, until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock. CARBERY, CUNNINGHAM, BABER, VORIS. [THURSDAY, FIFTY-FIRST DAY. THURSDAY, JULY 24, 1873. TEN O'CLOCK Å. M. Was read the second time, and referred to The Convention re-assembled pursuant to ad- the Committee of the Whole. journment. Prayer by Rev. J. M. TRIMBLE, D. D. Leave of absence was asked and obtained, for Messrs. BARNET and RUSSELL, of Muskingum, indefinitely; and for Mr. TUTTLE, until Tuesday next. The Roll was called, and ninety-three members answered to their names. FINAL READING. Proposition No. 149: To amend Article 15 of the Constitution, Having had its final reading, On motion of Mr. ROOT, Its further consideration was postponed until Wednesday, July 30th. RELATING TO ADJOURNING OVER. Mr. KECK was absent without leave. Messrs. BARNET, BEER, CAMPBELL, GURLEY, HITCHCOCK, LAYTON, MUELLER, RUSSELL Of Muskingum, SCOFIELD, SMITH of Shelby, and Resolution No. 94—By Mr. BEER, which reads YOUNG of Noble, were absent by leave. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. The following Petitions and Memorials were presented and referred as indicated: Mr. CARBERY moved to take from the table as follows: Resolution No. 94: Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns on Friday next, the 25th inst., it stand adjourned to meet in this Hall on the last Tuesday of November next, at 3 o'clock P. M. from voting on this Resolution, inasmuch as I have paired off with the gentleman from Preble, [Mr. BARNET.] Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I wish to be excused By Mr. MILLER: The petition of J. C. Williamson, and 400 other citizens of Darke, Shelby, Miami, Mercer, and Auglaize counties, asking that the Constitution be so amended, that new counties may be formed out of two or Mr. CUNNINGHAM was, by consent of the Conmore counties, when the same can be done with-vention, excused from voting. out reducing the counties thus affected by the formation of such new county, below four hundred square miles; but that new counties thus formed may contain less than four hundred square miles. Which was referred to the Committee of the Whole, to be considered in connection with Proposition No. 190, as reported by the Committee on the Legislative Department. By Mr. COATS: The petition of Lewis Carpenter, and 48 other citizens of Allen township, Union county, praying that the Constitution be so amended, that license to traffic in intoxicating liquors be prohibited; and that the General Assembly have full power to regulate, control, and prohibit such traffic. Which was referred to the Committee on the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors. By Mr. TRIPP: The petition of E. B. Green, and 55 other citizens of Ohio, praying for the prohibition of the liquor traffic. Which was referred to the Committee on the Traffic in Intoxicating Liquors. INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSITIONS. The following propositions were introduced, and read the first time: Proposition No. 197-By Mr. FORAN: To amend Article 9 of the Constitution. Proposition No. 196-By Mr. DE STEIGUER: To amend Article 6 of the Constitution. SECOND READING AND REFERENCE. The demand was sustained, and the yeas and Mr. BABER demanded the yeas and nays. nays being taken, resulted—yeas 46, nays 43, as follows: Those who voted in the affirmative wereMessrs. Adair, Albright, Andrews, Bishop, Byal, Caldwell, Carbery, Chapin, Clark of Jefferson, Clay, Cook, De Steiguer, Doan, Foran, Freiberg, Greene, Griswold, Hostetter, Humphreville, Jackson, Kerr, Kreamer, McBride, McCormick, Merrill, Miller, Mullen, Philips, Pratt, Rowland, Scribner, Sears, Shultz, Smith of Highland, Thompson, Townsend, Tripp, Tyler,Van Valkenburgh, Voris,Waddle, Weaver, Wells, White of Hocking, Woodbury, President -46. Those who voted in the negative were— Messrs. Alexander, Baber, Bannon, Blose, Bosworth, Clark of Ross, Coats, Cowen, Dorsey, Ewing, Gardner, Godfrey, Hale, Herron, Hill, ner, O'Connor, Okey, Page, Phellis, Pond, Hoadly, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, King, MitchePowell, Reilly, Rickly, Root, Russell of Meigs, Sample, Shaw, Townsley, Tulloss, Tuttle, Van Brown, Wilson, Young of Champaign-43. Voorhis, Voorhes, Watson, West, White of So the motion prevailed, and said Resolution was taken from the table. Mr. VORIS. I move to strike out the words "Friday next," and insert the words, "the day after Convention shall have disposed of Proposition No. 185, now being considered in the Proposition No. 193: To amend Article 4 of Committee of the Whole.” the Constitution Mr. CARBERY. I would like very much if the gentleman from Summit [Mr. VORIS] would withdraw that amendment, and permit me to offer one changing the day to next Friday week —August 1st-making it definite. Mr. VORIS. I have no objection at all, only so we can fix it at such time as that we can dispose of this Proposition. bates. It is from the Columbus special to that "An energetic messenger boy to-day made a canvass of July may not compel an adjournment, but August will. It is worse than nonsense to advocate a summer's session in a place so infernally hot as is Columbus in July, August, and September. It is the best any one can do, even on our Lake Shore, or on our "Little Mountain," or among our Islands, to secure comfortable nights; and without comfortable nights, a man is good for nothing for brain labor during the day-time. To talk about the necessity of finishing up the "If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well The making of a Constitution is a very grave The Convention will be compelled to adjourn, and even if the forty-two opposed to adjournment stick out, the seven now on the fence will ultimately jump down on the shady side, and carry the adjournment. Mr. CARBERY. In proposing that amendment, I desire to give time enough to Committees, now almost ready, to make their Reports. I believe it is the very general opinion of the members of this Convention, and a great many outside, that there is now no earthly prospect of getting through our work so as to submit it to the people at the October election. There is scarcely a dissenting voice to this. It is further admitted, by all those who are here working and feeling well, that working in warm weather is not the way in which we can do best. It is also, I believe, generally conceded that no gentleman here will be refused a leave of absence whenever he asks for it; and the prospect is, that, under the circumstances, if we continue the session, we will be doing business with a thin attendance. There is no doubt but excuses will be asked by many, for various reasons-the principal one being hot weather. The one next in importance is, that many will be greatly interested in the political campaign, and we will have a bare working majority in the Convention, perhaps; and let me say that the work done by an attenuated number will, by no means, be more effectually done than when we have a large number present. We will have, perhaps, two-thirds of the counties represented here. Now, sir, to work longer at this period suits the convenience of a small portion of this Convention. The minority, by great perseverance, have been successful in keeping the Convention here so long, against their desires; but I hope the day for the Convention is about to dawn when they will dare to assert their rights, and dare to do what is right, notwithstanding that minority. Our work ought to be very deliberately done, and ought to be continued after consultation with our constituents. I am aware that this sentiment has sometimes been sneered at, yet it is a sentiment with good, sound sense at the bottom of it. If we go to our homes, the Debates will reach us just as well as here. We are now up to about the fiftieth day. These Debates will reach us in our homes, and thus we will not be deprived of reading them. Much of the business has been upon matters on which the people have not had a single thought, and they and we can have opportunity to form opinions upon them. A great deal of the work of this Convention originated after we came to Columbus, and a great many of the subjects were entirely strange to the people; that is, they have never contemplated them in connection with this Convention. They are new to the Mr. ROOT. I have expected a renewal pretty people, and ought to be discussed at home. often for the last two weeks of this proposition There is, therefore, good sense in adjourning to adjourn-adjourn. Why, sir, there has been now, and coming back at the time indicated; one of the most earnest efforts made here, inand I hope that the gentlemen of this Conven- side and outside, and it is enlisting the support tion, taking all these reasons into consideration, of the press to organize a cholera stampede will vote as that amended Resolution proposes. here. I think for a well assimilated case of Before sitting down, I would like to read from cholera we could raise two thousand dollars, and The Cleveland Herald of the 24th of July, and for a genuine one I would raise something mythus give it the immortality of our regular De- self. [Laughter]. This thing has been going Now, Mr. PRESIDENT, in order to bring this Mr. ROOT. That is really a generous move! Mr. O'CONNOR. I think that call for the The PRESIDENT. Is there a second to the demand for the previous question? [Cries of "No! No!"] Mr. CARBERY. With the leave of the Con- drawn. |