« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Stanley Eyre Bowdle, died April 6, 1919, Cincinnati.
Your Committee does report, and attach hereto, sketches of the life and character of the deceased members, which have been submitted to your Committee for report. Respectfully submitted,
Chairman. (For memoirs, see Appendix, page 118).
THE PRESIDENT:—The report will be filed with the Secretary for publication under the rules. The next order of business is the report of the Committee on Legal Education, George W. Rightmire, of Columbus, Chairman.
Chairman George W. Rightmire presented the following report on behalf of the Committee on Legal Education:
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION.
CEDAR POINT, OHIO, July 8, 1919. The Committee on Legal Education of The Ohio State Bar Association begs leave to submit the following report:
Your Committee has considered the reports submitted by its predecessors in the years 1916-17-18 and finds that the subjects of pre-legal, legal, and ethical training for candidates for admission to the bar have been carefully and earnestly presented to your attention. Consideration has also been given to the reports of the corresponding Committee of the American Bar Association in recent years and we find that important and progressive reforms have been adopted, and some proposals for further reforms are still pending before the Association.
The Carnegie Foundation, more than five years ago, began an investigation into the whole matter of legal education in the United
States on somewhat the same scale as the investigation into medical education conducted by it some years previously; the report of that investigation has been expected for several years, but has not yet been made public. When it is published it will doubtless be illuminating and may serve as a guide for further advances in requirements for admission to the bar.
Your Committee has also conducted a partial investigation into records at the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio, showing the qualifications of candidates for admission to the bar. This is a matter requiring much time and patience, and has not progressed far enough to justify any conclusions. The desire of the Committee is to study the records for the past ten years and ascertain whether they indicate conditions which need improvement.
In view of this situation your Committee presents this merely as a report of progress and recommends: (1) that the Committee on Legal Education proceed with the investigation into the records mentioned at the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court; (2) that the Ohio State Bar Association approve the resolutions adopted by the American Bar Association prescribing advanced requirements in legal and ethical training for admission to the bar, and tender its support to the American Bar Association in its effort to awaken a dynamic interest in the educational and ethical improvement of the bar.
Chairman ELAM FISHER
Secretary CHESTER W. MERRILL
This report will be received and further consideration deferred.
JOHN F. CARLISLE, of COLUMBUS:- Mr. President and Gentlemen, I desire to submit to the Association at this time the following resolution:
CEDAR POINT, OHIO, July 8, 1919. WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Ohio has recessed until December 1, 1919, and
WHEREAS, a number of laws have been passed by the Eightythird General Assembly, which in the natural course of affairs, would not be printed in the form of session laws until after the final adjournment of the General Assembly, and
WHEREAS, there is a great need for these laws, especially on the part of Attorneys throughout the State, and others interested in the effect of them, be it therefore
Resolved, that it is the sense of The Ohio State Bar Association that Attorney General John G. Price be requested to use his best efforts to have the session laws up to date printed in pamphlet form or otherwise for distribution among the lawyers of the State, so that it would not be necessary to await the final adjournment of the General Assembly making such laws available.
I move the adoption of this resolution.
THE PRESIDENT:-The business meeting will now stand adjourned until Wednesday morning at ten o'clock.
July 8, 1919
Select Readings.... Mrs. Louis B. SAWYER, of Cincinnati Special Music.. Miss MYRTLE BAUMEISTER, of Sandusky, Soloist
July 9, 1919
The meeting was called to order by President Brown,
THE PRESIDENT:—The members of the Executive Committee feel themselves particularly fortunate in having obtained the presence of the distinguished gentleman who is to address us. He comes here at great personal inconvenience to himself.
Judge Stafford comes here to address us upon a subject which is in the public mind above all other subjects possibly in this country, the question of the League of Nations; not from a political standpoint, but purely from a legal and constitutional standpoint. He takes no political ground, as I understand, whatsoever.
It affords me great pleasure to introduce to you Honorable Wendell Phillips Stafford, formerly of the Supreme Bench of the State of Vermont, and now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Judge Stafford then delivered his address. (See Appendix, page 66).
THOMAS A. JONES, of the Ohio Supreme Court:- I move that the thanks of the Association be extended to Judge Stafford for the very excellent address that he has delivered. Motion seconded and carried unanimously by a rising vote.
The various judicial districts then met for the election of members of the standing committees.
(For members of standing committees, see pages 152–155).
A recess was then declared until Wednesday afternoon, July 9, 1919, at two o'clock.
July 9, 1919
The meeting was called to order by President Ensign N. Brown.
The report of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform was presented for consideration and was acted upon, section by section.
The Secretary read proposition one of the report as follows:
1. "Should the law for the non-partisan election of judges be repealed?”
THE PRESIDENT:—What is the pleasure of the meeting?
SIDNEY G. STRICKER, of Cincinnati:-I believe it has been the observation of all the members of the bar that however well the non-partisan judicial ballot was planned it has been demonstrated that in practice it does not work good results. The voters go to the polls in the large cities where there are six or eight judges to be elected at a single election and where they have as many as twenty to twenty-five different candidates. The intelligent voter may
know for whom he is voting, but the average man gets in a booth and sees a lot of names. There is nothing there to designate one from the other except a name, and they do not know whom they are voting for or what they are voting for. I know that both parties have been compelled in the city of Cincinnati to have circulars with the Democratic candidates on one ballot and the Republican candidates on the other. It results in the voter having to pick the candidate according to his party affiliations from this blind ballot. I believe that it is the general consensus of opinion among the lawyers at the bar in my bailiwick that it has been a failure, and I therefore move that it is the sense of this Association that the non-partisan judicial ballot law be repealed.
Motion seconded and carried.