court, that he should not be compelled to travel very far to have his case tried in another. If it is proposed to change that provision of the Constitution, requiring the Supreme Court to be held once each year in every county of the State, in behalf of the people's interests and rights, we enter our solemn protestations against any such change. No citizen, unless the Court is unable to agree, should be required to be put to the expense of going beyond the limits of his own county for an adjudication upon the merits of his case, when the case admits of an adjudication in the county where he resides.

It is therefore right and proper that the Supreme Court should, as they are required to do, hold their Court once a year in each county of the State. It seems to us that these suggestions are sufficient to show that the legislature can if it will, remove the evils now complained of in relation to the investigation and decision of causes by the Supreme Court. If the burthens of the Courts of Common Pleas are too oneorus, the legislature have ample power, as they have frequently exercised it by creating new judicial circuits. In great cities like that of Cincinnati,where litigation increases as rapidly as the city grows, interminable delay will inevitably result from the best system that can be devised. A man who gets into a law suit, to be tried in any of the great cities of the United States, stands a very fair chance of having his executors or administrators witness its consummation. We venture the opinion that there is not a single State in the Union where justice is more speedily, more economically, and more certainly administered, than in that of our own. Go where you will and complaints will exist; one party in a law suit will always be dissatisfied with the result. Such is the fate of litigation. Without answering farther the objection to our judicial system, as present constituted, we think we may safely conclude that if the legislature will go to work in sober earnest, with an honest desire to do good, that all the mischief complained of may easily be suppressed and the remedy advanced; in other words the fault is not in the Constitution, but for the want of proper legislation.

Another evil greater than all others that inflict our judicial system, is the forms of proceeding which are adopted and pursued. If the legislature would do what they should do, and sooner or later will, abolish the whole system of common law pleading, and institute instead thereof, a plain and practical manner of proceeding in all cases, so that without technicality or fiction, a decision may be had directly upon the merits of the case, they will do more to facilitate, make

economical and certain the administration of public justice, than any alteration or amendment of the constitution that could be invented or devised.

It will be found upon examination, that much of the expense and needless delays, and injustice done to parties, result mainly from the existence of the present system of procedure. The fault is not in the law, but in the forms through which it is administered.

With the legislature alone rests the responsibility of their longer continuance.

This is the second session that an effort has been made to pass a bill, prepared by one of the best legal minds of the State, for the building up of a system of procedure which will be free from all technicality and fiction, and look alone to the bringing of the issue between the parties to a speedy and direct decision.

It is a want of proper legislation that has brought upon us all the evils which are seriously complained of. Let the law making power of the State discharge its duty-let the people look well to the selection of their representatives, and hold them to a strict accountability for the manner they fulfil their trust. These rules and principles lived up to, we shall soon cease to be inflicted with bad laws and bad government.

Your Committee have listened with great attention to many of the reasons which have been urged in favor of this movement, and we are unable to see any wise and beneficial purpose, looking to the great good of the people, that lies in prospect in the event of a change of our present Constitution. One class of men want a new Constitution for one purpose, some for another; one will contend for negro suffrage, another is opposed to it; one is favorable to the principle of corporations and bank charters as necessary to the interest and business operations of the State, while a formidable number insists upon the reverse; and so on, questions are raised and objected to without end. In a Convention where delegates entertained sentiments so diametrically the opposite of each other, could you expect harmony, deliberation or conclusion. In the present state of party excitement, it would be impossible to form a Convention that would not to a great extent be biased by party prejudice, and fettered by party tramels. The domination of party would be the controlling object, party would rule the Convention, party would make the Constitution; and God save us not only the disgrace, but the destruction which would follow to the best and most important interests of our State from the adop

tion of a Constitution which was the work of party. The man who thinks we could get any other has not looked far into the realities of the times.

It is said that the Constitution was never submitted to the people for their ratification. This very fact is significant of its wise provisions, and salutary operations. Not a murmer of complaint has ever been heard against it from the great body of the people; they have tested it by nearly forty-seven years of experience, and their silent acquiescence is a most potent voice in its favor. It is the offspring of pure patriotism and sound political judgment.

It enlightened, animated, and made glad the hearts of the good men who framed it, and has protected and made prosperous the prolific generation that has followed them.

That it is the best that could have been devised, that it is free from fault, we do not plead; neither do we expect that any one will be so foolish as to contend that if a new Constitution was made to-morrow, that errors would not be committed, and that objections equally plausable might not be urged.

Again, it is said that the Constitution is objectionable because it is too general in its provisions. Your committee regard this as its greatest virtue-no wise constitution will ever prescribe what are proper and what are improper subjects of legislation. It should lay down in general terms those essential elementary principles of free government, with proper restrictions against legislative encroachment. The legislature should be left as much as possible with absolute power in its own department of the government, except the liberty to abridge, limit or destroy the rights and freedom of the people.

The Constitution should contain the principles of the government, while its policy should be left exclusively to the discretion and judgment of the legislature.

A constitution that would limit the legislature or dictate to it, measures of policy, would be not only unwise, but in nine cases out of ten, conflict with the best interests of the people.

In examining our constitution it will be found that while it is conservative in its character, and secures by its provisions the essential principles of free government, it leaves entirely its policy to be guided and controlled by the legislature. A constitution that would do more than this, would be destructive in its consequences, and would require frequent change.

Let us therefore not be deceived; the prosperity, onward growth and greatness of the State depend upon the preser

vation of our present constitution. We know that at times

its plainest principles have been utterly disregarded and set at naught. Let the legislature discharge their sworn duty; let them live up to, and carry out its provisions, and the seeming necessity for a new one will all vanish. It is broad enough and plain enough to uphold and protect every interest and every right for which "governments are instituted among men."

We should not rush headlong upon the wild sea of experiment-we should not lose sight of those great conservative principles that are indispensable to the perpetuity of republican liberty.

If a new constitution is necessary, let us wait until the going down of the sun of political strife-till the cessation. of party acrimony, and above all, until the voice of an intelligent and sovereign people ask it at our hands; let them be the arbiters of their own interest, and their own welfare.

While this constitution lasts, we have the promise of a bright and glorious future before us. Let the fiend of party spirit strike it down, blot it from the pages of our history and undertake to build another upon its ruins, and the evils which are now imaginary will be real.

The last plank of safety to that policy which has made the State what it is, will have passed from under us, and radicalism, the most ultra, and most destructive to the welfare of all, will stalk abroad. To save us from such ends, let us cling to this good old constitution, with the love our fathers bore for it, as the only sheet anchor of our hope and our safe destiny.

"The people of Ohio should remember that it has been to them the shadow of a great rock in a weary land, that it has protected them in the midst of strong excitement, and the most embittered party conflicts; and that it had the power to do this, because it was not the work of party, but of patriotism and political wisdom."

MILLER PENNINGTON.

REPORT

OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOUSE BILL NO. 234 CONCERNING ESCHEATED PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF HAMILTON.

The select committee to which was referred House Bill No. 234, "concerning eschcated property in the county of Hamilton," has had the same under consideration, and begs leave, earnestly to recommend its passage.

Escheats of land, previous to the year 1847, fell into the general property of the state, and in pursuance of the fiction that the state was the original donor of all property-a fiction consistent in feudal times, but now simply frivolous.Property in the soil began from first seizure and possession, and the first occupier of an estate left vacant, has, to this hour, as good a title as the community at large. At all events, counties are more entitled to assume the ownership of such property than the state, because the chief business of government, the administration of public justice, is carried on by county organizations.

In the year 1847, a different policy was adopted. By an act passed 8th February, of that year, new and more stringent provisions were made for discovering and securing escheats, and the proceeds thereof were appropriated (except in the city of Cincinnati.) to the maintenance of an agricultural fund. This act recognized the principle that escheats were not to be considered as parts of the ordinary revenue of the state, but as occasional contributions thereto, and properly applicable to those humane functions, beyond its exact limits, which the government has seen fit to exercise. Such has long been the policy of Ohio in relation to other extraordinary revenues. The auction fund, as it is called, has always been devoted to the support of our various asylums and hospitals. The appropriation of escheats to agricultural improvement, was in pursuance of this policy, and an act honorable to the legislature which accomplished it. The interests of manufactures and commerce have engrossed the