exceed two years, nor should it be created oftener than once in ten years. On February 15, 1883, the Supreme Court made application to the General Assembly for the appointment of a Commission, an act was passed establishing the Commission, and on April 17, 1883, a second Commission was appointed and served for a period of two years.

From the adoption of the new Constitution in 1851 this situation continued. The old District Court never gave general satisfaction and there was complaint about the delay attendant upon the administration of justice, and it seems to me as I have examined the minutes of the early meetings of the Ohio State Bar Association that this situation was one of the main reasons which called into existence the Ohio State Bar Association. The earlier work of the Association had to do with recommending changes in our judicial system.

At the first meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association, held in Cleveland, July 9th, 1880, Judge Rufus P. Ranney, the first President of the Association, a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1851, for years a Judge of the Supreme Court, and one of the best lawyers of the State of Ohio, speaking in support of a motion to instruct the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform to prepare a plan to facilitate the administration of justice in the State, said:

"We undertook the job, in this State, of creating too many Courts, of requiring the process to be too long to go from one to the other of the judicial system. What is wanted in this State is that which is adopted in every other state that I know of in the Union, and which is an inherent quality of every judicial system, that there shall be competent judges to decide cases in the first instance between parties, and other competent judges, simply to decide whether the cases have been rightly decided or not. When you get more than that, you have got more than the demands of justice require; and every addition you make to the simplicity of such a system is a clog upon the progress in getting through the Courts."

Judge Ranney then urged the abolishment of the old District Court, then in existence, and the increase of the number of Judges of the Supreme Court, and said that in the Constitutional Convention of 1851 he had urged a simple enlargement of the old system prior to 1851 by adding to the force of the Supreme Court, which was all that was required for a speedy and correct administration of justice in Ohio.

The Association held an adjourned meeting at Columbus, Ohio, in December, 1880, and the committee on judicial administration and legal reform, through its chairman, submitted a plan and a resolution; the subject was earnestly discussed, the report of the committee was adopted, and the committee was instructed to present the report to the legislature and urge its substantial adoption.

At the session of the Association in 1881 the committee reported a memorial it had submitted to the General Assembly, and at the session of 1882 a plan was submitted which provided for the abolishment of District Courts and the institution in their stead of Circuit Courts. The members of the State Bar Association were active and aided in securing the passage of the Constitutional Amendment of 1883, and their further influence in favor of this amendment was recognized at the session of the Ohio State Bar Association held in 1885, shortly after the creation of the Circuit Court, when General Asa W. Jones, in his address, as President of the Association, said:

"This Association originated the Circuit Court, caused it to be brought into existence, and must stand sponsor to the people of Ohio for its success."

And he further said:

"The Circuit Court was originated as a relief to the overburdened docket of the Supreme Court, and as a place at which to call a halt in a great volume of litigation; but it can only succeed in fulfilling the mission by carefully, fully and patiently considering the matters brought before it and ably and correctly determining the rights of parties litigant. If it does less than this, it becomes, like the defunct District Court, a mere gateway

or half-way house on the journey to the Court of the last resort."

The Constitutional Amendment of 1883 did not change the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but it authorized an increase in the number of the Judges and provided that, whenever the number of Judges should be increased, the General Assembly might authorize the Court to organize a division thereof, not exceeding three, each division to consist of an equal number of Judges. The General Assembly has never increased the number of Judges so that it was not practicable to have three divisions. The Circuit Court was created with the jurisdiction it has at present.

In the calendar of the Supreme Court for the January term of 1912 appears a table showing cases filed and disposed of each year from 1852 to January 1, 1912. There were pending on the general docket for the January term of 1911, at the opening of the term, 762 causes. During the year 1911, 500 new cases were filed on the general docket and during that year 564 were disposed of, so that on January 1, 1912, the calendar contained 699 cases. In a letter from Supreme Court Clerk Frank E. McKean, dated June 19th, 1912, responding to my inquiry, he says that there were on that date pending in the Supreme Court 691 cases, and that cases in their regular order, submitted without oral argument, are heard in from twelve to sixteen months from the date of filing by the full Court, and that it is not customary to submit that class of cases to a division of the Court.

The Clerk further states that cases in which oral argument is had are reached in from fourteen to sixteen months when assigned to a division of the Court, but that when oral argument is had to the full Court cases are reached in from twenty to twenty-four months.

The Clerk further states in this letter that during the last three or four years the Court has not been gaining in its work, nor has it been falling behind, but he directs attention to the table given in the Court calendar as showing that the work of the Court has greatly increased in recent years.

It was the evident purpose of the members of the Constitutional Convention to endeavor to relieve the Supreme Court. The plan suggested by Judge Ranney, and approved by Judge Burrows in his address as President two years ago, was considered, but in working out a plan for the relief of the Supreme Court the members of the Constitutional Convention have endeavored to follow the plan that was adopted years ago, at the time the United States Circuit Court of Appeals was created to relieve the Supreme Court of the United States.

At that time there were those who believed that litigants would never be satisfied unless their cases were finally submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that no work would be left for the Supreme Court of the United States to do; but the change in the Federal Court system has been generally satisfactory, and the Supreme Court of the United States has found plenty of work to do without hearing every controversy that is now disposed of by the Circuit Court of Appeals. It is now apparent that, if the Circuit Court of Appeals had not been created and given final jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of the United States would now have been so hopelessly behind in its work that it would have been useless to have taken cases to that Court, ever expecting to have them disposed of within any reasonable time.

The result of the adoption of the proposal by Judge Peck will be to reform the judicial system of Ohio; to limit the work of the Supreme Court; and to dignify and increase the importance of the Court of Appeals. The delay now resulting from taking cases to the Supreme Court will be eliminated, and it will be possible for litigation to be finally disposed of in from eighteen months to two years sooner than theretofore. The Circuit Court will no longer be a mere passageway to the Supreme Court, as the Court of Appeals will have a finality of jurisdiction that will clothe it with authority and give it greater importance. The new judicial system complies with the fundamental rule that each suitor is entitled to one trial and one appeal.

The State of Ohio, since the organization of the Circuit Court, has been fortunate in the selection of Judges of that Court. Many have been promoted to the Supreme Court, and others who have not aspired to that court have made excellent records, so that the Circuit Courts have the general confidence of the people.

The revisory power of the Supreme Court will be retained, so as to require uniformity in all the Courts of Appeals, and to consider cases of public or great general interest.

The Constitutional Convention has preserved the right to have an appeal in equity cases, and practically to permit two trials. As first adopted, this was not so provided. One trial is sufficient, with one appeal. This is not serious, as many of the Circuit Courts at present have adopted a rule requiring the testimony taken in the Court of Common Pleas to be written out and then to hear the case before the Circuit Court on the record, with such additional testimony as the Circuit Court might receive. This rule should be generally adopted. It provides for taking the testimony before a Court, and for a review of the entire case on law and evidence.

More power should be given to the Courts to assist the Juries in reaching a conclusion of the matter before the Court and jury. Courts should be allowed to comment on the facts. The Federal practice could well be followed in this way, and when we are adopting some of the provisions of the Federal Court it would be well to adopt others to the end that justice may be obtained promptly, as that is the sole end of all litigation. Justice Gray of the Supreme Court of the United States

said:

"Trial by Jury is a trial presided over by a Judge with authority not only to rule upon objections to evidence and to instruct the jury upon the law, but also, when in his judgment the due administration of justice requires it, to aid the jury by explaining and commenting upon, and even giving them his cpinion upon, questions of fact, provided only he submit these questions to their determination."