The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 75 eral assembly to enact laws, shall be deemed limitations on the power of the people to enact laws." The initiative was the first power reserved to the people and the signatures of ten per cent of electors are required upon a petition to propose an amendment to the constitution. When a petition, signed by the required number of electors, shall have been filed with the secretary of state, and verified as provided, proposing an amendment to the constitution, the full text of which shall have been set forth in the petition, the secretary of state shall submit, for the approval or rejection of the electors, the proposed amendment ninety days after the filing of such petition. Provision also is made for the initiation of a. law. This is done by filing with the general assembly a petition, signed by three per cent of the electors of the state, proposing a law. The full text of the proposed law must be set forth in the petition, which must be filed with the general assembly not less than ten days prior to the opening of the session. If the proposed law is enacted it shall be subject to a referendum. If it shall not be passed, or if it shall be passed in an amended form, or if action shall be taken thereon within four months from the time it is received by the general assembly, it shall be submitted by the secretary of state to the electors for their approval or rejection at the next succeeding regular or general election, if such submission shall be demanded by a supplemental petition signed by an additional three per cent of the electors of the commonwealth. The time for filing the supplemental petitions is limited to ninety days from the time the proposed law is decided by the general assembly, or ninety days after the 'expiration of such term of four months if no action has been taken on the proposed measure, or after the law, as enacted by the general assembly,. has been filed with the secretary of state. A majority vote is required to carry a proposal at the polls. The referendum is the second power reserved by the people, and the signatures of six per cent of the electors are required to a petition to order submission .to the people of the state for their approval or rejection of any law, section of law, or any item of any law appropriating money .passed by the general assembly. To enable the people. to take advantage of the referendum no law passed by the Ohio general assembly takes effect until ninety days have elapsed from the time it was filed by the governor with the secretary of state. .,,The .petition for a referendum duly signed and verified must be presented to the secretary .of state within ninety days after the law on which a popular expression is desired shall have been received by the secretary of state. And until the vote is taken, the law does not become operative. If a referendum petition is filed against any section of a law or any item of law appropriating money that has been passed, the remainder of the measure shall take effect. Laws providing for tax levies, appropriations for the current expenses of the state government, and state institutions, and emergency laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, shall go into effect immediately. 76 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio Such emergency laws must receive the vote of two-thirds of all the members of the general assembly. Backers of many proposals have taken advantage of the emergency clause to prevent a popular expression on pet measures that the general assembly enacted, but, as a whole, the I & R amendment has operated without creating any general dissatisfaction throughout the state, although, of ,course, murmurs of disapproval might be expected. Article IV relates to the judiciary, which underwent many changes at* the hands of the convention. These changes were loudly heralded as the "Reform of the judiciary," and time alone will tell whether the new rules adopted are an improvement. Section 1 puts the judicial power of the state in a supreme court, court of appeals (which took the place of the circuit courts), courts of common pleas, courts of probate, and such other courts inferior to the courts of appeals as may from time to time be established by law. The number of supreme court justices was limited to six judges and a chief justice, and the judges in office at the time of the adoption of the amendment were continued in office until the expiration of the terms for which they were elected. A majority of the supreme court constitutes a quorum and it is sufficient to pronounce a decision. The court has original jurisdiction in quo warranto, mandamus, hebeas corpus, prohibition and procedendo, an appellate jurisdiction in all cases 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 administrative officers as may be conferred by law. The court is required to hold at least one term annually at the seat of the state government, and such other terms, there or elsewhere, as may be provided by law. The judges of the supreme court are elected by the electors of the state-at-large for such term, not less than six years, as may be provided by law. The terms were fixed at six years by the general assembly that convened in the year following the adoption of the constitutional amendments. Whenever the judges of the supreme court' shall be equally divided in opinion as to the merits of any case before them and they are unable, for that reason, to agree upon a judgment, that fact shall be entered upon the record and such entry shall be held to constitute an affirmance of the judgment of the court below.. No law can be held unconstitutional and void by the supreme court without the concurrence of at least all but one of the judges, except in affirmance of a judgment of the court of appeals declaring a law unconstitutional and void. The latter provision brought a heated argument in the debate, the so called progressives taking the position that the judges had been too free in annulling legislative enactments, while others in the convention insisted that the provision constituted an intrusion on the judgment of the justices. In cases of public or great general interest, the supreme court may, within such limitations of time as may be provided by law, direct any court of appeals to certify its record to the supreme The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 77 court, and may review, and affirm, modify or reverse, the judgment of the court of appeals. •All cases pending in, the supreme court at the time of the adoption of the amendment, were permitted to proceed to judgment under the laws :that prevailed before the changes were made in the organic law of the state. The provision further was made that no law shall be passed whereby any person shall be prevented from invoking the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. Prior to the convening of the constitutional convention there bad been much agitation in certain newspapers against the so-called delays of the law. Records of the courts were closely scrutinized, and whenever a case was found that had been long in litigation or one that was not settled for several years after it was filed, the evidence was flaunted in the papers in bold type under black headlines. Such pounding in the papers and the oratory of the so-called reformers who seemed to get the ear of the public ahead of others, produced results, and soon there was a strong demand for cutting down the process of litigating through the state courts. This was accomplished by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court and giving the intermediate court extensive final jurisdiction. The name of the intermediate court was changed from the circuit court to the court of appeals and the boundaries of the circuit court districts served the same purpose for the new. tribunal. The judges of the circuit courts residing in their respective districts were continued judges of the court of appeals and were authorized to perform the duties thereof until the expiration of their respective terms. The terms of the judges were fixed at six years until otherwise provided by law, and the general assembly was given authority to alter the number of the districts or the boundaries thereof; providing that no such change affected the term of any jurists in office. The judges of the court of appeals are required to hold at least one term annually in each of the counties of their respective districts, and such other terms at a county seat in the district as the judges may determine upon. Each judge was given authority to exercise judicial powers in any appellate district of the state. The court of appeals continued the work of the circuit courts and all cases pending in the latter were determined by the court of appeals and supreme court, as had been provided by law, and cases brought into the court of appeals after the' amendment took effect, were subject to the provisions of the new constitution. The courts of appeals were given original jurisdiction in quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition and proceden do, and appellate jurisdiction in the trial of chancery cases, and to review, affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment of the courts of common pleas, superior courts, and other courts of record within the district as may be provided by law. Judgments of the court of appeals shall be final in all cases, except cases involving questions 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 great general interest in which the supreme court may direct the court of appeals to certify its record to that 78 - The Bench and Bar o of Northern Ohio court. No judgment of .a .court of common pleas, a superior court or other court of record shall- be reversed except by the concurrence of all the judges of the court of appeals on the weight of the evidence, and by a majority of the judges upon other questions ; and whenever 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, the judges shall certify the record of the case to the supreme court for review and final determination. The decisions in all cases in the supreme court shall be reported, together with the reasons therefor, and laws may be passed providing for the reporting of cases in the courts of appeals. 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 to any county to hold court. Section 3. of Article IV of the new constitution made an important change in the number of common pleas judges. The provision of this section was for one resident judge of the court of common pleas and such additional resident judge or judges as may be provided by law, to be elected in each county of the state by the electors of such county. As many courts or sessions of the court of common pleas as are necessary may be held at the same time in any county. Any judge of the court of common pleas may temporarily preside and -hold court in any county ; and until the general assembly shall make adequate provision therefor, the chief justice of the supreme- court of the state shall pass upon the qualifications or desirability of any judge of the court of common pleas, and he may assign any judge to any county to hold court. Prior to the adoption of this amendment, there were common pleas districts throughout the rural sections of the state, with two and three and four counties making up the districts, the judges in these districts. traveling from county seat to county seat and holding courts at stated intervals. The adoption of the amendment has, without doubt, quickened the transaction of court business, and -the dockets, with few exceptions, are kept clean. In some of the smaller counties of the commonwealth the complaint is made, however, that there is not sufficient business to occupy the time of the jurist ; but a decade after the adoption of the amendment there had not been a general demand made for the repeal of the system and the setting up of a new plan. In the larger counties of the state, notably Cuyahoga, there has been congestion in the docket, -cases piling up. The chief justice of the supreme court, however, under authority conferred upon him, has delegated jurists from the small counties to devote some time to Cuyahoga county. At times there have been as many as five judges from outside counties sitting in the common pleas court at Cleveland. Section 7 of Article IV provides for the establishment of a probate court, a court of record, open at all times, and holden by one judge elected by the electors of the county, who shall hold his office for four years. One such court is provided for in .each county of the state. Whenever ten percent of the electors of a The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 79 county having less than 60,000 population as determined .by the next preceding federal census, shall petition the judge of the court of common pleas of any such county not less than ninety days before any general election for county officers, the judge of the court of common pleas shall submit to the electors of such county the question of combining the probate court with the court of common pleas, and such' courts shall be combined and shall be known as the court of common pleas in case a majority of the electors voting upon such a question shall vote in. favor of the proposed combination. Under Section 12 of this article the judge of the court of common pleas is required to reside in the county in which his court is situated and his term is six years. Laws may be passed to increase or diminish the number of judges of the supreme court, to increase beyond one or 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 ; but no change, addition or diminution shall vacate the office of any judge; and any existing court heretofore created by law shall continue in existence until otherwise provided. The judges in office at the time of the adoption of the amendment relating to common pleas courts and the judges thereof were permitted to serve out their terms, and the additional judges were elected at the general election,. 1914. It further was provided that each county shall continue as a part of its existing common pleas district and subdivision thereof, until one resident judge of the court of common pleas is elected and qualified therein. Under Section 9, Article IV a sufficient number of justices of the peace is provided for. They are to be elected by the electors in each township in the several counties of the commonwealth, until otherwise provided by law. Their term of office shall be four years, and their duties and powers shall be regulated by law; provided that no justice of the peace shall be elected in any township in which a court other than a mayor's court, is, or may hereaf ter, be maintained with the jurisdiction of all cases of which justices of the peace have jurisdiction, and no justice of the peace shall have, or exercise jurisdiction, in such township, The feeling among certain persons that the courts had .been exercising too much power in certain matters that were of a personal nature was reflected in the proposal : "Laws may be passed, prescribing rules and regulations for the conduct of cases and business in the courts of the state ; regulating contempt proceedings, and limiting the power to punish for contempt. No order of injunction shall isue in any controversy involving the employment of labor, except to preserve physical property from injury or destruction ; and all persons charged in contempt proceedings with the violation of an injunction in such controversies shall, upon demand, be granted a trial by jury." The vote on this proposal was : "Yes," 240,896 ; "No," 257,302. When this book is published, the liquor traffic will have been completely outlawed by both amendments to the federal and state 80 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio constitutions, but it is interesting to note how the delegates to the constitutional convention of 1912, treated the liquor traffic. And it must be remembered that this decision of the delegates was recorded less than a decade before state and nation abolishd the traffic completely. For many years prior to the assembling of the delegates the power of the liquor traffic had been dwindling steadily. Each new session of the general assembly saw the wings of the traffic clipped to some extent. Men in the industry finally announced that they had a plan to "clean up" the traffic, to put it on a higher plane than it had been conducted. The plan was submitted to the constitutional convention in the form of a proposed amendment, and there the wet and dry interests and representatives fought it out, the delegates finally submitting a proposal. The controversy on this subject was one of the bitterest and hardest fought of any question considered by the delegates and it occupied a large part of the time of the delegates. In substance this proposal provided that licenses to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall be granted, and that license laws operative throughout the state shall be enacted with such restrictions and regulations as may be provided by law, and municipal corporations shall be authorized by general laws to provide for the limitation of the number of saloons. Not more than one license could be granted in each township or municipality of less than 500 population, or more than one saloon for each 500 of population in the more populous townships and cities. The traffic was not permitted under authority of a license in counties, municipalities, townships, residence districts, or other districts, in which prohibitive laws were in operation at the time of the adoption of the amendment. In other words, the saloons were not permitted under authority of the license to invade territory that had been voted dry under county, township and residence district option laws. Only persons who were citizens of the United States and of good moral character could obtain licenses and the licensee must reside in the county in which he conducts a saloon.' Men convicted more than once on charges of violating the license law were to lose their privilege. In order to prevent trafficking in licenses it was provided that the applicant for the privilege of engaging in the traffic should be the only one financially interested in the saloon that was to be conducted. New provisions were made for the submission of proposed constitutional amendments and for the calling of a constitutional convention, and as this is a subject of considerable importance to the legal profession, an outline of the amendment is given. The amendment on the subject is embraced in three sections under Article XVI. Either branch of the general assembly may propose an amendment and if the same shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the members elected to both houses, .the amendment, after certain formalities are observed; shall be submitted to the electorate at the next general election. When two or more amendments are submitted, they shall be voted on separately and a majority vote is required for adoption. Under the second provision for amending the constitution, two-thirds of the members elected to each house The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 81 of the general assembly may recommend that the electors vote on a separate ballot for or against the holding of a constitutional convention, and if a majority of the election favor the proposal, the general assembly shall, at its next session, arrange for the holding of such a convention and provide for the election of delegates. The delegates shall be nominated by nominating petitions only and shall be placed on non-partisan ballots for the election., The manner for amending the constitution provides that in 1932, and every twentieth year thereafter, the question : "Shall there be a convention to revise, alter or, amend the constitution ?" shall be submitted to the electors of the state. If a majority of the electors vote in the affirmative, then provision shall be made for the convention by the general assembly, but no proposals. adopted by the delegates shall become parts of the state constitution unless the electors, or a majority of these voting on the proposal, shall approve. Home rule was a popular cry in the days that immediately preceded the electing of delegates to the convention, and adherents of this theory were strong in the body that assembled to revise the organic law of the commonwealth. Among the more important acts of the delegates was the adoption of a proposal extending the powers of municipal corporations. This is known as Article XVII and there are fourteen sections under it. In this proposal municipalities were divided into cities and villages, the former having a population of 5,000 or more, while municipalities having less population were designated villages. After making provision for the transition from one class to another, municipalities were given power to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations as are not in conflict with general laws. The section relating to control and operation of public utilities precipitated a long battle, the advocates of public control of such organizations finally Winning out. Under Section 4 any municipality is given the power to acquire, construct, own, lease and operate within the corporate limits, any public utility the product or service of which is to be supplied to the municipality or any of its inhabitants, and may contract with others for any such period or service. The acquisition of any such utility. may be by condemnation or otherwise, and a municipality may acquire thereby the use of, or full title to the property and franchise of any company or person supplying to the municipality or its inhabitants the service or product of any such utility. The conservative delegates fought this proposal and failing to win, they had written into the proposals provision for a referendum election on any ordinance giving a municipality power to acquire and operate a public utility. Such an ordinance does not take effect for thirty days, and if, within that period, a petition signed by ten per cent of the electors shall be filed with the executive authority thereof demanding a referendum on such ordinance, the same shall be submitted to the electors at the next general election. If a majority approve the ordinance takes effect within a specified time. Section 8 of Article XVII is the so-called home rule section of the new constitution. Under it the legislative authority of any city 82 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio or village may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, and upon petition of ten per cent of the electors, forthwith provide by ordinance for the submission to the electors, of the question, "Shall a commission, be chosen to frame a charter ?" Provision shall be made on the ballot for the election of fifteen delegates-at-large who shall constitute a commission to frame a charter, providing that a majority of the electors cast affirmative votes. The proposed charter shall then be submitted to the electorate within a specified time and a majority vote is required for its adoption by the electorate. The legislative authority, by two-thirds vote of the members, may submit proposed amendments or the same may be done upon the petition of ten per cent of the electors of a municipality. One other important amendment is that contained in Section 12 of Article XVII and it provides that in the event a municipality acquires a public utility and desires to issue bonds for financing the deal, mortgage bonds may be issued therefor beyond the general limit of bonded indebtedness prescribed by law ; provided, however, that such mortgage bonds issued beyond the general limit of indebtedness shall not impose any liability upon such municipality but shall be secured only upon the property and revenues of the public utility, including a franchise stating the terms upon which, in case of foreclosure, the purchaser may operate the same, which franchise shall, in no case, be for a longer term than twenty years from the date of sale of such utility and franchise foreclosure. The general assembly also was authorized to enact laws limiting the power of the municipalities to levy taxes and incur debts. OHIO'S CIRCUIT COURT THE circuit court of the state was established to give to the judicial system that completeness and thoroughness that is needed to give weight to the operation of what is commonly regarded as the bulwark of the nation—the judiciary. 'The law and its machinery- moves slowly and deliberately so that ill-considered and immature decisions and opinions may be avoided. And so an intermediate court was established to give the lawyer an opportunity to have a tribunal of judges either to examine the records of the proceedings in the court below or to hear testimony anew in a case decided in lower court. The, tribunal was established to clothe the judiciary with that circumspection and care that have operated to increase respect and confidence in the judiciary.. Under the Ordinance of 1787, a general court was created for the entire Northwest Territory, first by appointment of Congress and then by the president. Three judges sat on this bench, and in addition to judicial powers, the jurists, with the governor of the territory, were authorized to promulgate laws. By an act of Congress, on May 8, 1792, any one of the judges of this court was authorized to hold court in the territory in the absence of the ethers. This tribunal was the general court of the territory and it also had the power to review the proceedings and decisions in the lower tribunals. The general assembly later became vested with this jurisdiction. Under the system laid out for the territory no intermediate court was provided for, the cases going for review from the court of common pleas direct to the general court, which corresponded to our present supreme court, although the problems of those days were vastly different than those now presented to the august tribunal of our commonwealth. The judges of the general court and the governor, however, made provision, in an early day of the territory, for the circuit court. One or more of the jurists of the general court were to sit in the circuit -court and to hear such issues as were joined in the general court or were removed by appeal from the court of common pleas. This, then, is the origin of the circuit court in the Northwest Territory and, of course, in the great state of Ohio. Later the general assembly of the territory divided the territory into judicial districts, each embracing one or more counties, provided that the circuit court should be held once a year instead of twice and that the circuit courts of Hamilton and Washington counties should not be. held by less. than two judges, of the general court. This system continued until the constitution of 1802 was adopted ; but the intermediate court had proven its efficiency and the framers .of the first constitution recognized the fact. Under 84 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio Article III of the constitution, provision was made for a supreme court of three justices, courts of common pleas, one for each county, justices of the peace, and such other courts as the general assembly might, from time to time, create. Any two of the three supreme court justices constituted a quorum and they were vested with such original and appellate jurisdiction as was directed by law. An additional judge might be added to the court by the legislature at the end of a five-year period, and the state was to be divided, if the justices so decided, into two districts, with two of the justices authorized to hold court in each. Under the reorganization of the court of common pleas, the state, by the constitution of 1802, was divided into three districts, in each of which a president was elected. In each county not more than three or less than two associate justices were authorized. The associate justices, in their respective counties, and the president, any three of whom constituted a quorum, made up the court of common pleas, which had common law and chancery jurisdiction. Criminal jurisdiction was vested in the courts of common pleas and the supreme court. Although no express provision was made for the circuit court in this constitution, yet the way was opened for the creation of the tribunal by the legislature under a provision authorizing "such other courts as the general assembly may authorize Under an act of February 17, 1808, an additional judge of the state supreme court was established and the state was divided into two districts, within which, any two of the judges were authorized to hold court. For the purpose of hearing and determining cases that were reserved by the supreme court, the jurists of the supreme court were required to hold, annually, an extraordinary session, which at least three of their number were required to attend. These sessions were to take place in Warren, Ross, Fairfield and Columbiana counties. It, was in this manner that the two branches of the state supreme court were established under the constitution of 1802. One was known as the supreme court on the circuit, and the other, the supreme court in bank. Only cases came before the court in bank in which there had been a disagreement on a question of law by the judges of the court on circuit, or a new and difficult question arose, or where in the ,trial the judges were hopelessly divided on the question of admitting or rejecting testimony, and were unable, for that reason, to decide a motion for a new trial. This law continued in operation until February 16, 1810, when it was repealed. But by the act of February 23, 1816, the number of supreme court justices was increased to four, and by act of January 20, 1823, it was made the duty of all justices of the court to meet annually in the state capital, immediately after the close of the circuit, to pass upon and decide all questions that were held by the judges on circuit for the high state tribunal. Thus in effect another intermediate court was established ; but following the method that was used in the days of the territorial government, when members of the supreme tribunal exercised intermediate appellate jurisdiction. This law, however, was repealed by 'the act of March 8, 1831, which took effect June 1 of the same The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 85 year. Under an act of March 10, 1831, the entire body of supreme court judges was required to sit annually in Columbus as a court in bank to hear and determine cases that might be reserved in any county. The specific provision in the law on this subject was that when any difficult and complex question arises in any proceeding pending in any of the counties before the supreme court on circuit, the judges thereof might reserve the same decision at the court in bank,. which was to be held next thereafter. The supreme. court of the state continued to hold its sessions in bank and on the circuit until the constitution of 1851 was adopted. Then it was provided that the judicial power of the commonwealth should be vested in a supreme court, in district courts, courts of common pleas, courts of probate, justices of the peace, and such other inferior courts as the general assembly may, from time to time, create. But the time had not come for the creation of the circuit court or intermediate court that we know today. Under the constitution of 1851, in the early days at least, the state was divided into nine common pleas districts, and each district was subdivided into three parts, in each of which a judge of the common pleas court was to be chosen. The general assembly was given authority to either increase or diminish the number of districts, the number of judges was under such a limitation, but two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature must concur in the enactment. Districts courts were made up of the common pleas judges of the respective districts and one of the judges of the state" supreme court, any three of whom constituted a quorum. The district court had original jurisdiction in mandamus, habeas corpus, quo. warranto and procedendo, as did the supreme court, and such appellate jurisdiction as might be provided by law. One term of the district court was required to be held in each county of the district annually, while the district courts were held to be the successors of the supreme court on the circuit. All law suits pending in the supreme court from the several counties were transferred to the district court, and cases pending in the supreme court in bank were sent to the supreme court. The lawyers had, for years, been in the habit of taking their appeals direct from the inferior courts to the supreme court on circuit, meeting there members of the supreme ‘tribunal of the commonwealth. They looked with distrust on this new intermediate court, made up of men from their own counties acting with but one judge of the supreme court. This distrust was first manifested by law on February 19, 1852, when a measure was enacted that provided for an appeal from the district court to the state supreme court on proper motion. The state was divided into five circuits for the district court, and the supreme court judge in attendance was made the presiding officer. The measure also defined the jurisdiction of the district court, giving it power on cause shown to issue writs of error, writs of certiorari, supersedeas, ne exeat, and such other orders not provided by statute that may prove necessary. The court was given appellate jurisdiction from the court of common pleas in all cases in which the latter tribunal 86 - The. Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio had original jurisdiction. The appeals were to be given, tried and heard in the same manner as though the district court had original jurisdiction, and the same pleadings were used unless cause was shown for modifications. The district court was also given specific authority to reverse judgments in the .lower courts, including the common pleas, the superior of Cleveland, and the superior or commercial of Cincinnati. The number of appeals was so great under the existing . law that by an act of April 12, 1858, a further limitation was levied on the right of appeal to the district court, only those litigants who did not have the right to demand a trial by jury being allowed to appeal. Under the provisions of the same law, the common pleas judge, who had decided a case in the lower court was barred from sitting in the district court on the same cause. Now came a complication that caused considerable dissatisfaction. The business of the court in bank had grown to such an extent that the supreme court judges were required to devote practically all of their time to these reviews. By an act of March 29, 1865, the supreme court justices were relieved from duty in the district court during 1865, and again under an act of April 2, 1870, it was provided that if at the December session of any year the judges of the supreme court should deem it for the best interest of the state that they should remain in session in bank, they might so continue and be relieved of duty in the intermediate court for the remainder of that year, either in whole or part. This law was followed by a decision of the supreme court justices, to the effect that a district court made up of three or more common pleas judges and without a supreme court justice sitting, was a valid and legal tribunal. The absence of the supreme court justices from the district courts lessened the regard of lawyers for the opinions and decisions: of the tribunal, which finally became regarded as only a necessary stopping place on the journey to the supreme court. The common pleas judges, finding that the task of holding ;the districts courts without extra compensation in addition to discharging their regular duties was too great, were forced by the growth of litigation in the court of common pleas to cut short the terms of district courts. This was but another .demonstration of the soundness of the theory that good service requires adequate compensation. The. dissatisfaction at this condition increased until in 1877, when, a constitutional amendment was proposed, providing for an independent district court to be made up of certain common pleas judges, 'who Would devote all of their time to the work, but it was voted down. An act of May 10, 1878, required the supreme court justices to designate three judges of the common pleas court in each district to sit as a district court, -but the measure was declared unconstitutional. Finally the members of the bar of the state decided to no longer tolerate such a condition, and the lawyers meeting in Cleveland on July 8, 1880, formed a. state bar association. One of the first measures brought to the consideration of the new organization was a plan to facilitate the administration of justice in the common- wealth. Judge Rufus P. Ranney, one of the ablest lawyers and The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 87 judges ever produced in Ohio, speaking on this subject at the meeting of lawyers, said in part : "The framers of our judicial system created an intermediate appellate court, called the district court, but they never contemplated that that court was going to be held exclusively. by the very men who had tried the case in the first instance ; that they were going to turn reviewers of themselves. It was an essential feature of their system, without which it never could have passed that convention, that a judge of the supreme court, with his knowledge and weight of character, should forever preside in the district court. What have we realized for years past in actual practice? That court is held by the judges who decided in the first instance and common pleas judges, doing as well as they can, but in nowise meeting the expectation of the public of an appellate court, and the consequence is that all the important litigation of the state finds its way right through this first appellate court in to the supreme court." This question was referred to the committee on judiciary and law reform of the association. The committee met at Columbus in December, 1880, and through the chairman, Durbin Ward, proposed a constitutional amendment, which provided for the abolition of the district court. The number of supreme court judges were to be increased to nine ; one term of that court was to be held annually at the seat of government ; and special terms. were to be held by not less than two justices of the supreme court in each county annually. The committee's report was adopted by the Ohio bar association, and the plan was presented to the general assembly at its next session for the submission of the question, but no action was taken. At the meeting of the state bar in Toledo, in 1881, the whole subject was referred to the same committee, and then at the meeting of the association, the following year, in Cincinnati, the committe reported the following plan; Section 1. The judicial power of the state is vested in a supreme court, circuit courts, courts of common pleas, courts of probate, justices of the peace, and such other courts inferior to the supreme court as the general assembly may, from time to time, establish. Section 2. The supreme court shall, until otherwise provided by law, consist of five judges, a majority of whom competent to sit, shall be necessary to form a quorum or to pronounce a decision, except as hereinafter provided. It shall have original jurisdiction in quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, and procedendo and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. It shall hold at least one term in each year at the seat of government and such other terms, there or elsewhere, as may be provided by law. The judges of the supreme court shall be elected by the electors of the state-at-large, for such terms, not less than five years, as the general assembly may prescribe, and they shall be elected and their. official term shall begin at such time as may be fixed by law. In case the general assembly shall increase the number of judges, the first term of such additional judges shall be such, that in each year after their first election, an equal number 'of the supreme 88 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio court shall be elected, except in elections to fill vacancies ; and whenever the number of such judges shall be increase, the general assembly may authorize the court to create divisions thereof, not exceeding three, each division to consist of an equal number of judges; for the adjudication of cases, a majority of each division shall constitute a quorum, and such an assignment of the cases to each division may be made as such court may deem expedient ; but whenever all judges of either division hearing a case shall not concur as to the judgment to be rendered therein, or whenever a case shall involve the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly or of an act of Congress, it shall be reserved to the whole court for adjudication. The judges of the supreme court in office when this amendment takes effect, shall continue to hold their offices until their successors are elected and qualified. Section 6.. The circuit court shall have like original jurisdiction with the supreme court, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. Such courts shall be composed of such number of judges as may be provided by law, and shall be held in each county, at least once in each year. The number of circuits and the boundaries thereof, shall be prescribed by law. Such judges shall be elected in each circuit by the electors thereof, and at such time and for such term as may be prescribed by law, and the same number shall be elected in each circuit. Each judge shall be competent to exercise his judicial powers in each circuit. The general assembly may change from time to time the boundaries of the circuits. The circuits shall be the successors of the district courts, and all cases, judgments, records, and proceedings pending in said district courts,, in' the several counties of any district, shall be transferred to the circuit courts, in the several counties, be proceeded in as though said district courts had been abolished, and the district courts shall continue in existence until the election and qualification of the judges of the circuit courts. This plan in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment was submitted on behalf of the state bar association to the general assembly in 1883, and in that year a joint resolution providing for the submission of the proposal was adopted. At the election which followed the electorate adopted the amendment, which became Sections 1, 2 and 6 of Article IV of the constitution. This rather lengthy outline of the activities which led to the establishment of the circuit courts, which have been superseded by the courts of appeals, places the credit for the foundation of the intermediate court of appeals, such as we see it in operation today, on the state bar association. It required years of effort on the part of lawyers—and they applied themselves .wholeheartedly to the cause—to bring about the adoption of the constitutional amendment providing for the court. To carry out the mandate from the people, the Ohio general assembly, on April 18, 1884, enacted a measure dividing the state into the following circuit court districts : The state shall be divided into seven circuits, of which the The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 89 counties of Hamilton, Clermont, Butler, Warren and Clinton, shall constitute the first circuit. The counties of Preble, Darke, Shelby, Miami, Montgomery, Champaign, Clark, Greene, Fayette, Madison, and Franklin shall constitute the second circuit, The counties of Mercer, Van Wert, Paulding, Defiance, Williams, Fulton, Henry, Putnam, Allen, Auglaize, Wood, Hancock, Hardin, Union, Seneca, Marion, Wyandot and Crawford, shall constitute the third circuit. The counties of Brown, Adams, Highland, Pickaway, Ross, Pike, Scioto, Lawrence, Gallia, Jackson, Meigs, Vinton, Hocking, Athens, Washington and Monroe, shall constitute the fourth circuit. The counties of Richland, Ashland, Knox, Licking, Fairfield, Perry, Morgan, Muskingum, Coshocton, Wayne, Holmes, Stark, Tuscarawas and Delaware, shall constitute the fifth circuit. The counties of. Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie, Huron, Lorain, Medina, Summit and Cuyahoga, shall constitute the sixth circuit. The counties of Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Trumbull, Portage, Mahoning, Columbiana, Carroll, Jefferson, Harrison, Guernsey, Belmont and Noble, shall constitute the seventh circuit. By this same act it was provided that three judges should sit on the bench of the court, that two of the jurists should concur in an order or decision or opinion, and that the first election for judges should be held in 1884. After the election, the governor was to determine, by lot, the terms of the judges in each, so that one should serve two years, one for four and the other, six years. Thereafter the term of the circuit judge was to be six years. The constitution gave the court certain specific powers and in addition thereto, the right to issue writs of supersedeas and such other writs as were not specifically provided or prohibited and were necessary for the due administration of justice. Experience in the district courts caused a provision to be made for the holding of two terms of the circuit court in each circuit, annually. Cases pending in the district courts were transferred to the circuit courts, and in the appeal cases, new bonds were required, while all laws applicable to the district court were extended to include the new tribunals. The first judges to sit on the new circuits follow : First, Joseph Cox, Cincinnati; James M. Smith, Lebanon ; Peter F. Swing, Batavia. Second, Marshall J. Williams, Washington court house ; Gilbert H. Stewart, Columbus ; and John A. Shauck, Dayton. Third, Thomas Beer, Bucyrus ; John J. Moore, Ottawa ; and Henry W. Seney, Kenton. Fourth, Thomas Cherrington, Ironton ; J. P. Bradbury, Pomeroy; and Milton L. Clark, Chillicothe. Fifth, John W. Allbaugh, Canton ; Charles Follett, Newark ; and John W. Jenner, Mansfield. Sixth, William H. Upson, Akron ; Charles C. Baldwin, Cleveland ; and George R. Haynes, Toledo. Seventh, Peter A. Laubie, Salem ; William H. Frazier, Caldwell ; and Hamilton B. Woodbury, Jefferson. 90 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio At the next session of the general assembly the circuit courts were given new powers and their efficiency increased by enactment under date of February 7, 1885. This measure provided that the circuit judges should meet annually in Columbus to fix the terms of the circuit court for the next year, and to choose one of their number as chief justice. He was to preside at the annual meetings, have authority to transfer judges from one circuit to another as occasion arose, while another section granted the right of appeal from common pleas court in cases where the right to demand a jury trial did not exist, the lower court having original jurisdiction of the litigation. Appeals also were allowed from an interlocutory order dissolving an injunction in which the common pleas court had original jurisdiction, by causing notice to be entered on the record and giving a bond on appeal unless the .party appealing was acting in a trust capacity and had given a bond to the state. Cases on appeal were heard on the same pleadings that were filed in common pleas court, unless they were amended on permission of the circuit judges. The circuit court was required to pass upon all errors alleged in the petition-in-error, and in every case where the judgment or order was reversed and the cause remanded for new trial, the circuit judges were required in their mandate to the court below to state the error or errors found in the record on which the reversal was made. Judge Marshall Williams, of Washington Court House, was elected the first chief justice of the circuit courts at a meeting in Columbus on the 10th day of February, 1885. The sixth circuit proved too cumbersome and the litigation too extensive for the three judges to handle it after two years of experience, and on March 21, 1887, the general assembly amended the act so as to provide for eight circuits instead of six. In the readjustment the counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, Lorain and Medina were taken from the sixth circuit to form the eighth and the counties of Williams, Fulton and Wood were taken from, the third' circuit and added to the sixth. By the terms of the measure which authorized this change in the circuits the judge of the sixth circuit at the time of the enactment of the measure and residing in the circuit, should continue to be a judge of this circuit until the end of his term, and that the two judges of the sixth circuit theretofore elected but residing in the new eighth circuit should be judges of the eighth circuit until the end of their term. It further was provided that at the November election, 1887, there should be elected two circuit judges for the sixth circuit, one to serve five years and one for one year, and there should be elected in the eighth circuit one circuit judge fora term of three years. In this manner the terms were readjusted to conform with those of the other jurists in the circuit. JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OHIO First District Joseph Cox, Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1899. James M. Smith, Lebanon, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1901. Peter F. Swing, Batavia, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1909. William S. Giffin, Hamilton, Feb. 9, 1899 to Feb. 8, 1911. Ferdinand Jelke, Jr., Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1901. to Feb. 8, 1907. Samuel W. Smith, Jr., Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1907 to Feb. 8, 1913. Edward H. Jones, Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Second District Gilbert H. Stewart, Columbus, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1895. Marshall J. Williams, Washington C. H., Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1887. John A. Shauck, Dayton, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1895.. Charles C. Shearer, Xenia, Feb. 9, 1887 to Feb. 8, 1899. Augustus N. Summers, Springfield, Feb: 9, 1895. to Feb. 8, 1907. James I. Allread, Greenville, {Feb. 9, 1895 to Nov. 15, 1895. / Feb. 9, 1909 to Feb. 9, 1913. Charles W. Dustin, Dayton, Feb. 9, 1904 to Feb. 8, 1913. Harrison Wilson, Sidney, Nov. 16, 1895 to Feb. 8, 1909. Theodore Sullivan, Troy, Feb. 9, 1899 to Feb. 8, 1911. William M. Rockel, Springfield, Nov. 21, 1910 to Feb. 8, 1911. H. L. Ferneding, Dayton, Nov. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Third Circuit Thomas Beer, Bucyrus, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1893. John J. Moore, Ottawa, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1895. Henry W. Seney, Kenton, Feb. 9, 1885 to Sept. 7, 1896. James H. Day, Celina, Feb. 9, 1893 to Feb. 8, 1905. James L. Price, Lima, Feb. 9, 1895 to. Feb. 8, 1901. John K. Rohn, Tiffin, Sept. 9, 1896 to Nov. 16, 1896. Ebenezer Finley, Bucyrus, Nov. 17, 1896 to Feb. 8, 1897. Caleb H. Noris, Marion, Feb. 9, 1897 to Feb. 8, 1909. William T. Mooney, St. Marys, Feb. 9, 1901 to Dec. 1, 1904. Edward Vollrath, Bucyrus, Dec. 3, 1904 to Feb. 8, 1906. Silas E. Hurin, Findlay, Feb. 9, 1905 to Feb. 8, 1911. Michael Donnelly, Napoleon, Feb. 9, 1906 to Feb. 8, 1913. Walter H. Kinder, Findlay, Feb. 9, 1909 to Feb. 8, 1913. Phil M. Crow, Kenton,, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8,,1913. 92 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio Fourth District Thomas Cherrington, Ironton, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1911. J. P. Bradbury, Pomeroy, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1889. Milton L. Clarke, Chillicothe, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1897. Daniel A. Russell, Pomeroy, Feb. 9, 1889 to Feb. 8, 1901. Hiram L. Sibley, Marietta, Feb. 9, 1897 to Feb. 8, 1903. Thomas A. Jones, Jackson, Feb. 9, 1901 to Feb. 8, 1913. Festus Walters, Circleville, Feb. 9, 1903 to Feb. 8, 1913. E. D. Sayre, Athens, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Fifth District John W. Albaugh, Canton, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1893. Charles Follett, Newark, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1895. John W. Jenner, Manseld, Feb. 9, 1885 to Oct. 5, 1895. Julius C. Pomerene, Coshocton, Feb. 9, 1893 to Jan. 5, 1898. John J. Adams, Zanesville, Feb. 9, 1895 to Feb. 8, 1901. George E. Baldwin, Canton, Oct. 5, 1895 to Nov. 17, 1895, Charles H. Kibler, Newark, Nov. 18, 1895 to Feb. 8, 1897. Silas M. Douglas, Mansfield, Feb. 9, 1897 to Feb. 8, 1903. Martin L. Smyser, Wooster, Jan. 14, 1898 to Nov. 15, 1898. John M. Swartz, Newark, Nov. 16, 1898 to Feb. 8, 1899. Richard M. Voorhees, Coshocton, Feb. 9, 1899 to Feb. 8, 1905. / Feb. 9, 1909 to Feb. 8, 1913. Maurice H. Donahue, New Lexington, Feb. 9, 1901 to Dec. 31, 1910. Thomas J. McCarty, Canton, Feb. 9, 1903 to Feb. 8, 1907. John W. Craine, Canton, Feb. 9, 1907 to Feb. 8, 1909. Frank Taggart, Wooster, Feb. 9, 1905 to Feb. 9, 1911. Frank M. Marriott, Delaware, Jan. 1, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Robert S. Shields, Canton, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Louis K. Powell, Mt. Gilead, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Sixth District William H. Upson, Akron, 0., Feb. 9, 1885 (transferred to 8th Dis.). Charles C. Baldwin, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1885 (transferred to 8th Dis.). George R. Haynes, Toledo, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1909. Charles S. Bentley, Bryan, Feb. 9, 1888 to Feb. 8, 1895. Charles H. Scribner, Toledo, Feb. 9, 1888 to March 3, 1897. Edmund B. King, Sandusky, Feb. 9, 1895 to Oct. 9, 1899. Robert S. Parker, Bowling Green, March 11, 1897 to Feb. 8, 1911. Linn W. Hull, Sandusky, Oct. 10, 1899 to Feb. 8, 1907. Samuel A. Wildman, Norwalk, Feb. 9, 1907 to Feb. 8, 1913. Silas S. Richards, Clyde, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Seventh District Peter A. Laubie, Salem, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1911. William H. Frazier, Caldwell, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1901. H. B. Woodbury, Jefferson, Feb. 9, 1885 to Dec. 20, 1895. Jerome, B. Burrows, Painesville, Dec. 30, 1895 to Feb. 8, 1909. John M. Cook, Steubenville, Feb. 9, 1901 to Dec. 1, 1910. The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 93 Myron A. Morris, Youngstown, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Willis S. Metcalf, Chardon, Feb. 9, 1909 to Feb. 8, 1913. Charles Fillus, Warren, Sept. 10, 1910 to Feb. 8, 1911. John Pollcek, St. Clairsville, Feb. 9, 1911 to Feb. 8, 1913. Eighth District William H. Upson, Akron, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1893. Charles C. Baldwin, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1885 to Feb. 8, 1901. Hugh J. Caldwell, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1888 to Feb. 8, 1903. John C. Hale, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1893 to Feb. 8, 1905. Ulysses L. Marvin, Akron, Feb. 9, 1895 to Feb. 8, 1913. Louis H. Winch, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1893 to Feb. 9, 1913. Frederick A. Henry, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1905 to Feb. 9, .1911. Charles A. Niman, Cleveland, Jan. 2, 1912 to Dec. 2, 1912. Judges of the court of appeals, their residences and terms of office follow : First District Peter F. Swing, Cincinnati, O., Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1915. Edward H. Jones, Hamilton, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1917. Oliver B. Jones, Cincinnati, Feb. 9; 1913 to Dec. 31, 1918. Frank M. Gorman, Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1915 to March 23, 1918. Francis M. Hamilton, Lebanon, Feb. 9, 1917 to ..... Gideon C. Wilson, Cincinnati, April 3, 1918 to Nov. 20, 1918. Walter M. Shohl, Cincinnati, Nov. 20, 1918 to Feb. 8, 1921. Wade Cushing, Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1919 to ..... Robt. Z. Buchwalter, Cincinnati, Feb. 9, 1921 ..... Second District James I. Allread, Greenville, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... H. L. Ferneding, Dayton, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... Albert H. Kunkle, Springfield, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... Third District Walter H. Kinder, Findlay, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1921. Phil M. Crow, Kenton, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... Kent W. Hughes, Lima, Nov. 22, 1916 to ..... Michael Donnelly, Napoleon, Feb. 9, 1913 to Dec. 14, 1914. T. T. Ansberry, Defiance, Jan. 9, 1915 to Jan. 10, 1916. James E. Robinson, Marysville Jan. 10, 1916 to Nov. 22, 1916 / Feb. 8, 1920 to ..... E. N. Warden, Paulding, Feb. 9, 1921 to ..... Fourth District Festus Walters, Circleville, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1921. Edwin D. Sayre, Athens, Feb. 9, 1913 to..... Thomas A. Jones, Jackson, Feb. 9, 1913 to Dec. 31, 1914. Matthew Merriman, Gallipolis, Jan. 2, 1915 to Feb. 8, 1916. William H. Middleton, Waverly, Feb. 9, 1916 to ..... Roscoe J. Mauck, Gallipolis, Feb. 8, 1921 to ..... 94 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio Fifth District Richard M. Voorhees, Coshocton, Feb. 9, 1913 to July 21, 1915. Robert S. Shields, Canton, Feb. 9, 1913 to ...... Louis K. Powell, Mt. Gilead, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1919. Frank M. Marriott, Deleware, Jan. 1, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1913. Lewis B. Houck, Mt. Vernon, Feb. 9, 1915 to ...... Frank N. Patterson, .Mt. Gilead, Feb. 9, 1919 to ...... Sixth District Reynolds R. Kinkade, Toledo, Feb. 9, 1913 to ....... Silas E. Richards, Clyde, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... Charles E. Chittenden, Toledo, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... Seventh District Willis S. Metcalf, Chardon, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1921. Myron A. Norris, Youngstown, Feb. 9, 1913 to June 20, 1914. John Pollock, St. Clairsville, Feb. 9, 1913 to ..... W. H. Spence, Lisbon, Aug. 31, 1914 to Feb. 8, 1917. Louis T. Farr, Lisbon, Feb. 9, 1917 to ..... James W. Roberts, Feb. 8, 1921 to ..... Eighth District Louis H. Winch, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1915. Walter D. Meals, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1913 to March 5, 1917. Charles R. Grant, Akron, Feb. 9, 1913 to Feb. 8, 1919. Alfred G. Carpenter, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1915 to Jan. 24, 1918. P. L. A. Lieghley, Cleveland, March. 5, 1917 to April 8, 1918. Thomas S. Dunlap, Cleveland, Feb. 4, 1918 to Feb. 8, 1921. Albert Lawrence, Cleveland, April 10, 1918 to Nov. 25, 1918. Clarence G. Washburn, Elyria, Nov. 25, 1918 to ..... Willis Vickery, Cleveland, Feb. 9, 1919 to ..... Alvan F. Ingersoll, Feb. 8, 1921 to ..... THE FEDERAL BENCH BY HON. JOHN M. KILLITS Judge of the District Court of the United States, Northern District of Ohio WHEN Ohio was admitted in 1802, of course it became a separate district for a federal court, and, March 3, 1893, Charles Welling Byrd entered his credentials as the first district judge, holding his first term in June of that year at the then capital of the state, Chillicothe. Judge Byrd served until his death, August 11, 1828. When Columbus was made the state capital, the seat of the court was removed thither. Judge Byrd issued the injunction in Osborn vs. Bank of United States, 9 Wheaton, 738, one of the series of cases Chief Justice Marshall employed to so interpret the Constitution of the United States as to make of that instrument a practical compact to the building of a great nation. President John Quincy Adams appointed William Creighton to succeed Judge Byrd. His was a recess appointment. Under it he held court in November and December, 1828. At that time the senate was politically hostile to the president, and Judge Creighton was not confirmed. One of the first acts of President Jackson was to appoint to the judgeship, three days after his inauguration in 1829, John W. Campbell, who held office until his death, September 24, 1833. A recess appointment was then given to Benjamin Tappan, a distinguished state judge and statesman, who was permitted to hold but three days, court, December 23, 24, 25, 1833, not having been confirmed. The vacancy in the office thereafter continued for six months, when, July 24, 1834, Humphrey H. Leavitt entered upon the duties to which he had been appointed. Judge Leavitt was then thirty-eight years old. He served the court with great distinction for a period of thirty-seven years, retiring under the age provisions of the law. During his term of office, by act of Congress passed February 21, 1855, the state of Ohio was divided into two districts, the north forty-eight counties being assigned to the northern district. Judge Leavitt elected to remain in the southern district. Therefore Hiram V. Wilson, of Cleveland, was appointed in March, 1855, judge of the northern district. Judge Wilson was a very distinguished member of the Cleveland bar, and had been closely associated in the practice with several prominent lawyers, having been at one time a partner of Henry B. Payne, and at another time of Reuben Hitchcock. The tradition is that Judge Wilson distinguished the bench in every way. He was, however, in somewhat indifferent health, and died at the age of fifty-eight on the 11th of November, 1866. March 18, 1867, Charles T. Sherman, of the Cleveland bar, son of the late Judge Sherman of the Supreme Court of Ohio, was appointed 96 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio district judge, holding office until his resignation, November 28, 1873. lip to this time Cleveland had been the only seat of the court, but the northwestern part of the state, later in its development than any other, had begun to reach out for the importance which it now has. Wherefore, in 1870, an Act was passed permitting, at the discretion of the judge, the holding of two terms, annually, of the district court in Toledo, leaving Cleveland as the one seat of the circuit court. In 1878, by the act of the 8th of June, the northern district was divided in the eastern and western division, naming the counties comprising the divisions, and providing that causes of action and crimes arising within the counties comprising the several divisions should be prosecuted within those divisions and at their respective places of holding court, namely, Cleveland and Toledo. In 1880, by an act of Congress, the counties of Union, Delaware, Morrow, Knox, Coshocton, Harrison and Jefferson were transferred to the southern district of Ohio, and in 1891, the county. of Logan, leaving the Northern District and the several divisions to be as they are now constituted. The counties of Ashland, Ashtabula, Carroll, Columbiana, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Holmes, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas and Wayne make up the Eastern Division, and the counties of Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lucas, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Wood and Wyandot the Western Division. The act of 1911, going into effect the 1st of January, 1912, abolishing the circuit court and transferring its jurisdiction to the district court also rearranged the times of holding court. A previous Act having designated Youngstown as an additional seat of holding court the terms, as now provided for, are as follows': Eastern division at Cleveland, first Tuesdays in February, April and October, and at Youngstown, first Tuesday after the first Monday in March ; western division, at- Toledo, last Tuesdays in April and October. Martin Welker, of Wooster, was appointed district judge to succeed Judge. Sherman, taking his seat as of the date December 2, 1873, and remaining in office until May 29, 1889, when he resigned as provided by law: He was succeeded by August J. Ricks, of Massillon, who had for several years been clerk of the circuit court and who had distinguished himself ,as master in chancery. The health of Judge Ricks failing and the work of the district getting into confusion in consequence, Francis J. Wing, a common pleas judge of Cuyahoga county, was appointed January 30, 1901, an additional judge by virtue of an act of Congress which provided that no successor to Judge Ricks should be appointed. Judge Ricks continued in office without being able to attend to his duties until his death, December 2, 1906. On the 31st of January, 1905, Judge Wing resigned, succeeded on the 1st of February by Robert W. Tayler, member of Congress from New Lisbon. Judge Tayler filled the position with very great acceptability until his sudden death, undoubtedly caused in some measure by the extraordinary burdens of the office, November 26, 1910. In addition to his work on the bench, Judge Tayler distinguished himself for his participation in the Cleveland street car settlement, being largely responsible for the so-called Tayler plan of street car operation, which has proven so successful. The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 97 It was long apparent that the northern district was growing so in population and commercial importance that the work on the bench was altogether too heavy for one man. Therefore, at the insistence of the bar and business interests of the district, Congress passed, February 24, 1910, an act creating an additional judgeship, to fill which position John M. Killits, of Bryan, then on the common pleas bench in the third judicial district of Ohio, the northwestern district of the state, was named June 24, 1910. From the sudden death of Judge Tayler in November a vacancy existed until May 13, 1911, when William L. Day, then district attorney, was appointed. He continued in office until the 30th of April, 1914, resigning to enter practice because of the inadequacy of the salary of the position. July 21, 1914, John H. Clarke was appointed to succeed Judge Day, holding the position until his promotion to the Supreme Court of the United States, resigning as district judge July 24, 1916. To succeed Judge Clarke, David C. Westenhaver, of Cleveland, was selected March 14, 1917. The district’s rapid growth in population and the extraordinary industrial expansion in both the divisions have given it rank, in amount of business transacted, both in quantity and importance, with the first half dozen districts in the country. During the past ten years the character of the work done before the courts in both divisions has undergone much change. The passage of the Employers, Liability Act and the Ohio Workmen’s Compensation Act has relieved the court of very much personal injury litigation. Although the district is very largely maritime in its associations, there has been but a moderate amount of admiralty business which has not materially changed in quantity within the period named. Industrial expansion, however, has increased to an appreciable extent the amount of equity business, especially in patent litigation, so that the district has become an important one in that respect. Its position on the border and its relation to the great east and west trunk line railroads has thrust upon it, with the passage of the acts of February, 1913, conferring jurisdiction over thefts from interstate commerce, the act of December, 1914, giving federal courts jurisdiction of narcotic offenses, and the acts of 1917, 1918 and 1919, conferring jurisdiction in matters pertaining to intoxicating liquors, a great burden of criminal litigation. The greater part of the very large increase in population of Ohio in the last decade has been in this district, and the two judges have, as constituents, more than three million people. There is a promise of a great need in the near future of an additional judge if there should result the increase in business which the continuing growth of the district indicates. The first session of court in this district was held at Cleveland March 20, 1855. The first entry on the journal was the recording of the commission of Judge Wilson, signed by President Franklin Pierce. The first entry in a case was the taking of the recognizance of a defendant charged with making, forging and counterfeiting coin of the United States. The district court first sat in Toledo, December 10, 1872, with Judge Sherman on the bench. The first act was to empanel a grand jury which immediately returned one indictment and was discharged. The party indicted was placed upon trial on the next day for passing counterfeit gold coin, was convicted and sentenced to five years in the Ohio penitentiary and given a thousand dollars, fine, whereupon the court adjourned, to hold its next session on the 10th of the follow- 98 - The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio ing June.. The first session of the circuit court in Toledo was opened September, 1878, with. Judge Welker. on the bench. Thereafter continuously annual sessions of the district and circuit courts were held in Toledo until the circuit court went out of existence on the 31st of December, 1911. The illness of Judge Ricks, already referred to, and the heavy and steady increase of business in Cleveland, brought about of necessity much neglect of work in Toledo, and spasmodic efforts were had from time to time to clean it up, until Judge Killits was appointed, judges being brought in from different parts of the circuit. On one occasion Circuit Judge Lurton and District Judge Clark from Tennessee, District Judge Severens from Michigan and Judge Ricks held four courts at one time in the present federal building in Toledo, occupying the court room, the library, the clerk’s office and the file room. Many other judges appeared for the relief of the Toledo situation, among whom were Judge John Baxter, of Knoxville, Tenn., whose career on the Toledo bench is one of the traditions of the older bar Judge Eli S. Hammond, of Memphis, Tenn. ; ex-President Taft, as circuit judge ; Judge Wanty and his successor, Judge Knappen, now of the circuit court of appeals, from the western district of Michigan, and Judge Sater from the southern district of Ohio. Since the establishment of two judgeships in the district there has been no bringing in of outside judges except in the instance of Circuit Judge Julian W. Mack, of Chicago, who presided for three weeks in Cleveland, for the trial of damage suits, while the vacancy of 1916-17 was continuing, and except in cases where there were exchanges. The importance of Toledo as a railroad center has made the Toledo court famous in the litigation of the country for its railroad receiverships and foreclosures, the principal ones being those of the Ohio Central Railroad, the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad, known as the Clover Leaf, and the Wabash. The Ohio Central Railroad foreclosure case was commenced in January, 1884, and ran through varying phases, considering many issues, until the last entry, finally concluding the case, which was entered July 22, 1920. For over thirty-six years this case was on the docket of the Toledo court. The Clover Leaf Railroad experienced three foreclosures. One began in 1883, another in 1893, on which the road was sold in 1900, and the third is now pending, having been planted in October, 1914. It involves some exceedingly important and interesting litigation. On the reorganization resulting from the second foreclosure, the road having been sold in 1900, one bond entitled to dividends in the proceeds never was presented for payment, and its distributive share in the sum of $1,331.46 was, under the law, subsequently turned into the Treasury of the United States. Out of the Wabash foreclosure came the famous Compton cases, 45 Ohio State, 592 ; 167 U. S. 1. In 1887 the court at Toledo was flooded with a number of patent cases. In less than three months 286 equity cases were commenced, all but a handful distributed between the American Bell Telephone Company and those under the Driven Well patents. This was a great season for clerk’s fees, but these cases resulted in no extensive litigation. One equity case of outstanding interest was that in Toledo of. Anderson vs. Messenger, involving interesting questions of testamentary title to real estate. It was commenced in 1904, and occupied The Bench and Bar of Northern Ohio - 99 the attention of both state and federal courts to the supreme courts of each jurisdiction. In its course forty judges participated. The state courts and the district court held with the Messenger interests who had been in possession for forty years, until, after the second reversal by the circuit court of appeals, the district court was forced to a judgment for Anderson claiming under the will of his grandfather, who died in Mississippi in 1847, and as sole heir of his uncle, who, as devisee of the grandfather, had died childless and intestate. The case appears in 79 Ohio State, 23 ; 146 Fed. 929 ; 158 Fed. 250 ; 171 Fed. 785; 222 U. S. 164 ; 225 U. S., 436. Messenger finally retained the property through the supreme court’s judgment. A case which not only established precedents in substantive law and practice, but also had some political effect arose in Toledo in 1893. It was that of the Toledo, Ann Arbor Railway Company vs. the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, and others, under the-Interstate Commerce Act to compel free interchange of traffic at Toledo which was impeded because of the sympathy of employes of the defendant companies with the striking employes of the complaining company. An injunction issued, substantially as prayed for, running against the defendant companies and their employes generally. James Lennon, an engineer for the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, was attached for violation of this injunction which had been issued by Circuit Judge Taft and District Judge Ricks, sitting together. The various questions arising in this litigation involved and decided not only the absolute duty of connecting railroads to accommodate each other in facilitating traffic, but the responsibility of the employes of such roads, whatever might be their affiliations and obligations in labor associations, to perform their duties under the Interstate Commerce Act. Lennon was convicted by Judge Ricks and fined. The proceedings in their various phases are reported in 54 Fed (two cases) 730, 746 ; 64 Fed. 320 ; 150 U. S. 393 ; 166 U. S. 548. In the presidential campaign of 1908 Lennon’s case was under much discussion. The authority of this case has been variously applied since, always to uphold its conclusions. The eastern division has not been without heavy railroad litigation, probably the most important being that involving the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad which pended from 1908 to 1919. This company was a reorganization from the old Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company which was under receivership for eleven years expiring in 1908, prior to which time the Cleveland, Canton & Southern Railway had long been in the courts, becoming consolidated with the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company. Some of the district's criminal cases have gone into history, attracting the interest of the entire nation. Foremost of these were the cases from Oberlin, in Judge Wilson's time, involving the Fugitive Slave Law. Judge Wilson is said to have been a very impressive figure in the controversies growing out of this matter because of the dignified and impartial manner in which he administered very difficult situations in times of great passion and emotional stress. A negro slave named John, belonging to one Bacon of Kentucky, had escaped to Ohio. He was reclaimed by Bacon’s agent and attorney at Oberlin, and was placed in the custody of a federal officer. Thirty-seven persons were indicted for their participation in a rescue of the slave, the indictments alleging that the act was