vote, and there was a much less number here at the time the vote was taken than are here now. When we look at the debate last year, it will be noticed that on the side that was advocating the cutting down of the jurisdiction they had the floor nearly all the time; and our side, as I might call the side that my Brother Van Fleet was advocating, probably through our modesty—

JUDGE DOYLE: I will count pages with you, and if you haven't got more pages in that than I have, I will treat.

MR. BURKET: I had to yield the floor in order to let the vote be taken, it being the very last thing at the expiration of the session; and in place of it being an expression of the opinion of this Bar Association, it was the expression of but a very few of the Association. It was a time when they had nearly all scattered out, and when the forces were not present. I claimed then, and I claim now, that it was not an expression of the judgment of this Association. It has gone upon the record, and I felt very much that it would accomplish nothing, for the reason that I didn't believe that you would ever get a legislature in Ohio that would embrace that in a statute. I was willing that the trial should be made. I feel now that I would be willing to give the persons who advocated that theory another opportunity to see whether that could be adopted. I don't believe it can be done. But as I understand this proposition now, it doesn't conflict with that, not at all; but the idea is, to go to the legislature, letting the action of last year stand, and in addition thereto ask that the judicial force be increased. And this is the number that I have always claimed we should have to constitute the Supreme Court. But let them go to the legislature with both propositions, if they please. The cutting down of the jurisdic

tion costs nothing. It takes none of the revenue of the State, while the creating of new Judges does take the revenue; and it was said by some one that it had been reported that the State was unable to bear the expense. Why, let the legislature look the matter over, and do that which they think ought to be done, and if they in their wisdom think we should cut down the jurisdiction, and we will get any relief, or sufficient relief, let us try that. I have no faith in it myself. I don't think with the present judicial force that you can work off the judicial work that is to be done in the State of Ohio. The only thing that will give final relief is to have the judicial force increased. It seems to me that there is no conflict here with what we did last year. We are simply making an additional request.

JUDGE JONES, Cleveland: The two propositions that have been alluded to are in no wise inharmonious. They may both stand together, and both should stand together, in my judgment. I am not anxious to speak, but I wish to express a consideration that has not been alluded to by anybody, which I think is entitled to great weight. It is this. Everybody states that it takes about six or seven years to go to the Supreme Court and get a cause tried. Where is the relief that the parties are going to get if you cut down the jurisdiction? You don't get your case heard for so many years. We have to wait a half dozen years before we get the effect of it, because we are not going to get the effect of it until the present cases in the Supreme Court are swept away. This recommendation, if it is adopted, don't sweep away one of them. They are already in the Supreme Court. The parties stand waiting, and will wait, four, or five, or six years before the Court can get to them and get away with the accumulated busiThe simple thing of cutting down the jurisdiction, if five

ness.

Judges can do but two-thirds of the work, will amount to nothing until the accumulated business is swept away. But we ought to have immediate relief. One single word in regard to fairness. Yesterday afternoon it was discussed for a long time. It seemed hours to me, during the hot day, and then at the request of the opponents of this scheme there was a special meeting called for the evening at eight o'clock. Everybody was notified that this matter was under discussion, and everybody was notified that a vote would be taken at eight o'clock; and the discussion was continued for no other purpose than that a vote should be taken when everybody could be got in. The two propositions are fair and harmonious. They can both stand together. They are not inconsistent, and can be jointly urged—that is, if this proposition is adopted.

MR. GUNSAULLUS: With reference to the fairness or the unfairness of this discussion, when we discussed this matter yesterday afternoon, some who were opposed to the action of the Committee were desirous of having no vote taken at that time, but that we wait until we could get a full attendance. I was upon the Committee, and was anxious to have the report of the Committee adopted, and it was upon my motion that this vote was then postponed, or the further discussion of the proposition, until eight o'clock. Last evening at eight o'clock-I think I am not mistaken in saying that—we had a fuller attendance of members of the Association than when this matter was discussed one year ago. Judge Doyle was present last evening. He was also present a year ago. The friends and the foes of this measure were notified of the postponement of the discussion last night, and that we would again assemble at eight o'clock

JUDGE DOYLE: Not for discussion. Adjourned to eight

o'clock to take a vote. I asked Col. Holmes for permission to speak, and he made the point that the adjournment was had for the simple purpose of taking the vote, and that no discussion was in order.

MR. GUNSAULLUS:

I was the mover of the motion, and I moved it for the purpose of having a full discussion. I am glad my friend resumed the discussion of it to-day. If Judge Doyle, or any other member of this Association, has a better way, I shall vote for it with all my heart. I am not a stickler with reference to the adoption of the report of this Committee because I belong to the Committee, but I wish that we may have the very best thing done that can be done under the circumstances. If Judge Doyle suggests anything that is better than that report, I will willingly vote for it; but with reference to the objection that he makes, I can see nothing in it. If we have come to the conclusion that we should change—we have more mature wisdom in a year--though there is such a conflict as Judge Doyle says, say that we ought nevertheless to do that which to us seems to be the best thing, and if after a year we conclude to do as we now suggest, I say that it is the wisdom of this Association to vote for it.

I

The motion of Mr. Gunckel to reconsider the vote by which the seventh recommendation of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform was adopted was lost.

On motion of Judge Pike, the Association agreed to assume the expenses of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform incurred in bringing the matters entrusted to its care before the legislature and the Supreme Court.

MR. HOUK, Dayton: I want to call the attention of the Association to a subject which I think now agitates the public mind, as well as the minds of men and women, and to offer a resolution. My resolution is this:

WHEREAS, The law of Ohio upon the subject of Divorce, in its practical operation, is detrimental to good morals and social purity, and tends to the serious impairment of the sacredness of the marriage relation, which lies at the foundation of our whole social structure,

Resolved, That a Special Committee of Five be appointed by the Chair, to be charged with the duty of preparing a full report upon the subject, to be submitted to the consideration of the next annual meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association.

The resolution was adopted, and the Committee appointed as follows: Chairman, Geo. W. Houk, Dayton; Hon. Joseph Cox, Cincinnati; Hon. J. M. Jones, Cleveland; Sam'l F. Hunt, Cincinnati; F. D. Gunsaullus, Norwalk.

GEN. HUNT: It is perhaps proper to state for the information of the Association that the Executive Committee have formally organized this morning, and selected Put-in-Bay as the place for the next Annual Meeting. The third week in July has been designated as the time-Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the third week in July, 1891. The business of the Executive Committee has all been closed satisfactorily.

A vote of thanks to the President and Officers of the Association for their very efficient services during the past year, was adopted, and also a vote of thanks to the proprietor of the Beebe House, for the use of his hall, when the Association adjourned.