This Association has also adopted another principle which was to relieve the Supreme Court, by giving the decisions of the Circuit Court some point and effect. In every State in the Union in which there has been provided an intermediate court, the judgment of those courts have been made final in certain cases. In Illinois, where they have an intermediate court, the judgments are final in cases involving less, I think, than $2,000; in Missouri, where they have an intermediate court, the judgments are made final where the cases involve only a certain amount; in Kentucky, where they have an intermediate court, the principle is fully established; in the Federal courts it has been the recognized principle for years and years.

The minority report does not say what principle should be accepted. It therefore does not involve a dispute about the method; but simply what this Association has, year after year, proposed, adopted, and recommended: that inasmuch as a court was provided -a court to which every man might go and have his case reviewed, that in some cases, upon some principle of limitation, the judgment of that court might be made final. This Association has adopted and recognized that principle. Shall we now depart from it? We adopted it upon the ground that the State, having gone to the expense of providing that method of appeal, some final force and effect should be given to it. We also adopted it because we were convinced that if the judgments of the Circuit Court were made final in that way, we. would possibly be increasing the docket and the importance of that court; and once it is thoroughly established in the respect of the profession as a power-its dignity established, the appeals to the Supreme Court would be fewer. The simple question upon these two recommendations is, whether or not this body is going to maintain its influence by adhering to a course which has been adopted time and again, or whether we are going to transfer our body and our influence and turn our backs on everything that has been done.

MR. J. C. HEINLEIN, Belmont County: I now wish to offer an amendment to this minority report, and in order to do that I desire to read that report. (Reads the minority report.) Mr. President, I am opposed to a commission. I am heartily in favor of a part of this report, but I am just as heartily opposed to a part of it. The Legislature during the last session enacted a law providing for an additional supreme judge, so that we shall have six judges, with two divisions, three constituting a division.

I think, Mr. President, that the Legislature is not anxious to increase the expenses of this State. I speak in behalf, I believe, of a majority of the House of Representatives of this State. When the bill originally came from the Senate, providing for five additional judges of the Supreme Court, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the House, that question of economy was thoroughly discussed, not only by that committee, but by various members of that House. So that in order to get such an act through, and give us a certain amount of relief at all, this compromise was finally effected, and one additional judge was provided for. The bill as it originally came from the Senate was amended and passed in the House, sent back to the Senate, the amendment agreed to, and there passed. We shall have six Supreme Court judges. You may call it an experiment. I hardly agree that it should be called so; but we do not know yet how it is going to work. Why are we here to send a recommendation to the Legislature to provide for two additional judges, when we do not know to-day what will be the effect of the additional one upon the relief that we ask for? As it is, and as every gentleman here understands the law to be, there are two divisions, and it is necessary for at least three judges to concur before a decision shall be rendered. What is the object of having four judges? Does it help us at all to have two divisions of four judges any more than two divisions of three judges? To-day it only takes three judges of the Supreme Court to decide a case; under the new law it takes three judges to decide a case.

Now, gentlemen, there is that great question of economy. You never get up a question of increased expenditure in the House but that it is fought, and fiercely fought, by the farmers who represent their constituencies on the floor of that House. Why should we then send a recommendation to that House to increase the number of judges, when we know, as I say, that there is such a large number who will not listen to the recommendation?

There is a part of this, as I have said, that I agree to; and that is, I am in favor of cutting down the number of cases that shall be appealed from the Circuit Court. I do not say that the number of judges that we have will furnish that relief that we ask for; I do not believe that it will; and I do not believe that eight judges will furnish that relief-I do not believe that eight judges will furnish any more relief than six judges will. I believe that we can get that relief

only through cutting off, or shutting off, the appeal of cases to the Supreme Court. In view of my feelings in regard to the matter, and in view of the feelings of the members of the General Assembly in regard to this great question of economy, I move that this minority report be amended by striking out the following:

"And in permanently increasing the number of the judges of the Supreme Court to not less than eight."

JUDGE HARMON, Cincinnati: I rise to second the motion just made, not because I differ from the minority report in principle, but I differ from it on the question of its advisability at the present time. It does not seem wise for a body of men to go to the same Legislature which has just given six judges, after full discussion, and ask for eight, without making a trial. Let us wait and see what the six can do.

I am unalterably opposed to this idea of a commission-I am opposed to that on principle.

GEN. GROSVENOR: Here are two propositions; and by simply demanding a separate vote, you have got all that you want in that minority report-a separate vote on the two questions.

JUDGE HARMON: I only want to say one thing. We are all prepared to vote. I wish to say a word as to the Circuit Court. I think, as a rule, we have got good Circuit Courts. If they are not, we ought to make them. The gentleman from Athens says that we must wait and find out whether the Circuit Court is to be trusted. There is no way like putting responsibility upon them to bring out their qualities. One reason why the Circuit Courts do not do as well as they might, is because they feel that their decisions are not final. The minute you put upon a man the responsibility of making a final decision, he is careful to put forth his best reason and effort. They say the legislature of Ohio will never cut off the right to go to the Supreme Court. If it is right, it is the duty of the Bar of Ohio to back it up. Often it is only a useless burden of expense, and it is a mistake in judgment for an attorney to go to Columbus and print a record, and it is his duty to say so to his client. It is a mistake to say that in such a case the party has a right to go to the Supreme Court. We ought to see that some class of cases, I don't care what, shall stop at the Circuit Court.

JUDGE MAXWELL: I desire to accept Judge Harmon's suggestion. MR. PRATT: I wish simply to read the resolution, without the

preamble, of the majority of the committee. It is proper that I should make this statement in view of what Mr. Maxwell has said, that we did not get a full meeting of the committee. Mr. Maxwell himself was not present at the meeting of the committee, which was called here on the day preceding the convention, and did not take any part in the discussion of the report as it was originally made. He came into the room just as the session commenced, and then it was submitted to him, without any opportunity for discussion between him and the other members of the committee. It was so that the members of the committee who were present felt called upon to act in the premises, whether they were a majority or not, so that these questions referred to the committee might be brought before the convention.

MR. WHEELER: The constitution authorizes the members of the committee who are present to constitute a quorum and act.

MR. PRATT: I don't know whether that is so or not. We determined to act. The report was made, and it is the sense of all the members of the committee who were present and took part in the discussion. (Reads majority and minority reports.) There is nothing in this minority report recommending a word of anything. It is simply in opposition to the report of the committee. One of the objections that might be urged to it is, that if this motion is carried, adopting this minority report, it leaves the matter just where it stood.

Judge Maxwell: I desire to accept the amendment of Judge Harmon. The result of that is that the minority report recommends that no commission be appointed.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean the amendment of the gentleman from Belmont-Mr. Heinlein?

JUDGE MAXWELL: Yes, sir. This takes out the recommendation for an increase in the Supreme Court, the commission is opposed, and that stands with reference to relief by limiting the right of appeal from Circuit Courts, without saying how that right of appeal shall be limited.

The minority report, as amended by Mr. Heinlein, was then substituted for the majority report, and then said minority report, thus amended and thus substituted for the majority report, was adopted by the Association.

(Noon recess.)

AFTERNOON SESSION-SECOND DAY.

THE PRESIDENT: We have present here to-day a gentleman who, as a practitioner at the Bar, and as a professor, and as president of the American Bar Association, has always maintained the good name of the profession. He has honored our literature, too, by contributions from time to time. He comes from a distant State as the guest of our Association, and I can assure him a welcome as cordial as would be his greeting under the elms of his own New Haven. I bespeak for him a respectful and attentive hearing-Professor Baldwin, of Yale University.

(See Appendix II for address.)

that

MR. L. M. JEWETT, Athens: I move that the earnest and hearty thanks of this Association be extended to Prof. Baldwin for this very able paper, and that it be recorded in the minutes. Carried, unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT: The report of the Committee on Nominations and Election of Officers is now in order. The following gentlemen were reported by the several districts as the members of that Committee:

MR. BATEMAN: The Committee on Nominations is unable to present its report now, in consequence of not having nominations from the several districts of officers that may be required. As soon as that is done, we will present the report.

GEN. JONES: What is the reason they can't report for themselves? MR. BATEMAN: Very well. If our duties don't include that, we are ready to make our report now.

THE PRESIDENT: Your report simply includes the nomination of officers for the ensuing year.

MR. BATEMAN: Mr. President, the Committee on Nominations make the following report: We recommend for President, Judge John H. Doyle, of Toledo; for Secretary, Frederick C. Bryan, of