and the Constitutional Convention has sought, by amending the Constitution, to permit of the enactment of such laws. On the other hand, other proposals provide for radical changes in the legislative policy of the State, and reflect the progressive ideas of the people.

Before the electors of the State shall have an opportunity to vote on these various proposals, all of these matters will undoubtedly be freely discussed, and the members of this association will be called upon to explain their views and give the people the benefit of their advice and counsel as to the wisdom of adopting any or all of the proposals.

In this address it has seemed best, in the limited time given me, as President of the Association, to confine myself to the proposals as submitted by Judge Peck of Cincinnati, providing for a change in our Judicial System, and by James W. Halfhill, of Lima, providing for a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in each County.

These two proposals are so related that it will be necessary to consider them together, although it is possible for one to be adopted and the other to be rejected. At the last session of our association a committee was appointed to present certain recommendations of this association to the Constitutional Convention. The Committee was fortunate in that one of its members, Judge E. B. King, was a member of the Constitutional Convention and in that way in a position to give personal attention to the matter at all times.

The proposal by Mr. Halfhill, also a member of this association, was the one proposal that the association, at its last meeting, recommended, which was adopted by the Constitutional Convention. The proposal by Judge Peck was a much more radical proposal than had been theretofore suggested, and was supported by the Cincinnati Bar Association, which had a large influence in securing its passage.

The proposal for a change in our Judicial System provides for a Supreme Court, until otherwise provided by law, consisting of a Chief Justice and six Judges. It gives the Supreme

Court original jurisdiction as at present, and appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving questions arising under the Constitution of the United States or of this State, in cases of felony, on leave first obtained, and in cases which originated in the Court of Appeals, and such revisory jurisdiction of the proceedings of the administrative officers as may be conferred by law. The Judges shall be elected for terms of not less than six years, as may be prescribed by law.

No law shall be held unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court without the concurrence of at least all but one of the Judges, except in the affirmance of a judgment of the Court of Appeals declaring a law unconstitutional and void.

It is a further provision that in cases of public or great general interest the Supreme Court may, within such limitations of time as may be prescribed by law, direct any Court of Appeals to certify its record to the Supreme Court, and may review, and affirm, modify or reverse, the judgment of the Court of Appeals; and there is an express Constitutional provision that no law shall be passed or rule made whereby any person shall be prevented from invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

A Court of Appeals, consisting of three Judges in each of the present circuits in which Circuit Courts are now held, is created, and it is provided that the Judges of the Circuit Courts now residing in their respective districts shall be judges of the respective Courts of Appeals in such districts. The Court of Appeals shall hold at least one term annually in each County in the district, and such other terms at a County Seat in the District as the Judges may determine upon.

The same original jurisdiction is given the Court of Appeals as to the Circuit Court at present, and appellate jurisdiction in the trials of chancery cases and jurisdiction to review, affirm, modify or reverse the judgments of the Courts of Common Pleas, Superior Courts or other Courts of Record within the district as may be provided by law; and it is expressly provided that judgments of the Courts of Appeals shall be final in

all cases except cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, or of this State, cases of felony, cases of which it has original jurisdiction and cases of public or great general interest, in which the Supreme Court may direct any Court of Appeals to certify its record to that Court.

No judgments shall be reversed on the weight of the evidence except by the concurrence of all of the judges of the Courts of Appeals, and by a majority of the judges on other questions. Authority is given, whenever the Judges of a Court of Appeals find that a judgment upon which they have agreed is in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by any other Court of Appeals of the State, to certify the record of the case to the Supreme Court for review and final determination.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State shall determine the disability or disqualification of any Judge of the Court of Appeals, and he may assign any Judge of the Court of Appeals, in any County, to hold Court.

These, in the main, are the principal provisions of the proposals introduced by Judge Peck; and the adoption of this proposal will involve a radical change in our judicial system.

The Halfhill proposal provides for the selection of one resident Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and such additional resident Judge or Judges as may be provided by law, in each County; abolishes the present districts in which Common Pleas Judges are selected; continues the Probate Court in each County, but provides that, in any County having less than 60,000 population, whenever 10 per cent of the electors voting for Governor at the preceding election shall petition the Judge of the Court of Common Pleas to submit the question to the electors of combining the Probate Court with the Court of Common Pleas, if the majority vote is in favor of such combination the Courts shall be combined, and be known as the Court of Common Pleas; and grants authority to increase or diminish the number of Judges of the Supreme Court, and to increase beyond one, or to diminish to one, the number of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in

any County, and to establish other Courts whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each House shall concur therein.

In this connection it is interesting and will be instructive to examine the experiences of the State of Ohio with reference. to the Judicial System as it has existed from the beginning down to the present time.

The first Constitution of Ohio, known as the Constitution of 1802, provided that the Judicial Power of the State, both as to matters of law and equity, be vested in a Supreme Court, in Courts of Common Pleas for each County, in Justices of the Peace, and in such other Courts as the Legislature might, from time to time, establish.

The Supreme Court originally consisted of three Judges, until 1816, when the membership of the Court was increased to four, and as by the Constitution there could be no more Judges of the Supreme Court, this continued to be the number of Judges of the Supreme Court until after the Constitution of 1851 went into effect. The judges were appointed for terms of seven years by a joint ballot of both houses of the General Assembly. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas were selected in the same way. The Supreme Court had original and appellate jurisdiction, both in common law and chancery, in such cases as should be directed by law; held Court in different parts of the State; and was required to hold a session in each County of the State once a year.

The

The State was originally divided into three Circuits for the selection of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, and in each circuit there was selected a President Judge, and in each County not more than three nor less than two Associate Judges. President and Associate Judges, in their respective counties, any three of whom constituted a quorum, composed the Court of Common Pleas. The number of circuits was thereafter increased. Associate Judges were frequently not members of the bar. The Court of Common Pleas also had jurisdiction of Probate and testamentary matters.

The work of the Supreme Court was very much behind, and the requirement that Court be held in each County was a

burdensome requirement. These facts together were potent influences for calling a new Constitutional Convention, and later in the adoption of the provisions of the Constitution of 1851.

By the Constitution of 1851 all Judges were made elective, and the Supreme Court consisted of five Judges and was given original jurisdiction in Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeas Corpus and Procedendo, and such appellate jurisdiction as might be provided by law. A District Court was created which should have like original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction as might be provided by law. District Courts were composed of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in the respective Districts, and one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, any three of whom should form a quorum, and the District Court was required to hold three yearly sessions in not less than three places in the District. The Court of Common Pleas was constituted as at present, and the State divided into Districts and Subdivisions. The Probate Court was created.

The work of the Supreme Court was so far behind that at the annual October election of 1875 a Constitutional Amendment was adopted providing for a Supreme Court Commission of five members, appointed by the Governor to hold office for the term of three years from and after the 1st of February, 1876. This Commission was authorized to dispose of such part of the business then on the dockets of the Supreme Court as should, by arrangement between the Commission and the Court, be transferred to the Commission, and the Commission was given like jurisdiction and power in respect to such business as the Supreme Court had. The Commission did efficient work and sat for three years. In the Amendment to the Constitution authorizing the creation of the Commission was a further provision that the General Assembly, upon application of the Supreme Court, duly entered on the journal of the Court and certified, might provide by law, whenever two-thirds of each House should concur therein, from time to time, for the appointment in like manner of a like Commission, with like powers, jurisdiction and duties, provided that the terms of such Commission should not