young friend, you have misinterpreted its meaning, that's all; the balance is all right. The trouble is in the interpretation of the words which you saw upon the wall. They didn't mean, my friend, "Go, preach Christ," but they meant this "Go, plough corn!" So, if somebody would say to these young men, who try time and again to get into the Bar, “Your calling is to 'Plough corn'", it would be beneficial to them and to the Bar. (Applause.)

Governor Nash: Mr. President, I move that we adopt the address of Judge Stewart as embodying the sentiments of this Association, and that we refer the recommendations therein to the Supreme Court of Ohio for its consideration. Carried.

Mr. S. M. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I move on behalf of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform that we consider the report of that Committee now, instead of this afternoon. Carried.

The Chair: We will therefore take up the consideration, at this time, of the report of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform.

Mr. H. J. Booth: Mr. President, there are five subdivisions of the report of the Committee, and as Chairman of that Committee I don't expect to discuss more than one or two of them. The members of the Committee, recognizing the peculiar qualifications of the Hon. Edward Kibler to discuss the first of these propositions, have suggested to him that he take the responsibility of presenting the matter briefly to the Association. The Committee will very gladly give way to Mr. Kibler, if he will very kindly say anything that he deems proper to say in support of that proposition, which reads as follows: "We recommend that another effort be made to secure a plan of organization

of municipal corporations which shall be uniform in its operation throughout the State."

Mr. Edward Kibler: Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Bar Association:

66

The question presented by the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform is really as to the advisability of further attempting to obtain some uniform legislation. It seems to me that there are or can be scarcely two opinions upon that proposition, as to the desirability, if not the necessity, of some systematic uniformity of legislation. I saw sometime ago that there could not be any adequate or sufficient legislation upon that subject that does not embrace a revision of the whole municipal code. Now, it was my privilege, a year ago, to present to this Association some of the salient features of the bill prepared by the Municipal Code Commission," which among other things sought to bring about this uniformity which we conceive was required by the Constitution of Ohio. It is not my purpose now to deal with the provisions of that bill except in the most general way, and to state that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of Article XIII of the Constitution of Ohio, which provides that the General Assembly shall provide for the organization of cities and incorporated villages by general laws, under legislation which has grown up since 1850 in the State of Ohio, we have at present fifteen distinct classes of municipal corporations. We have four grades of cities of the first class, eight grades of cities of the second class, two classes of villages, and hamlets. Now, under the provisions of the Municipal Code Bill there were but two classes or kinds of municipal corporations-those suggested by the language of that section of the Constitution that I have quoted, viz: cities and villages. The bill pro

vides in addition the separation of the executive duties from the legislative duties of municipal officers, a thing required by the terms of the Act creating the Commission; it provided a federal plan for the government of cities, coupled with a Civil Service or merit system of provisions for the selection of minor subordinate officers, and to control their tenure; and in order to abolish the municipal classes it provided that the local council of each city and village should control its legislative affairs and not the Legislature of the State. In addition to these features there was added a nonpartisan election for the nomination and election of municipal officers, taking the matter of the election of municipal officers entirely out of the control of party politics. There was provided a limited municipal ownership, so far as it extended to the cities of 50,000 and over, in respect to street railways and telephones. This bill was introduced in both branches of the last Legislature. Its passage was not urged by any committee or body of men that I know of, but it was opposed, actively opposed, by certain interests. My information is that the bill passed the Senate near the close of the session by a vote of 18 to 11, without any change whatever, and by a vote of Democrats and Republicans indiscriminately; and was afterwards reconsidered by a party vote. That is the history of that bill and its fate before the Legislature. There was no vote taken in the House. The chief objections to this bill, so far as I have learned, are first, as to its provision for municipal ownership; the bill was radical in this respect, that it did provide that cities of 50,000 and over, upon a vote of the people might embark in the municipal ownership of street railways, and providing that all municipal corporations might, upon a like vote,

embark in the ownership of a municipal telephone plant. That provision is embraced in two chapters of the Revised Code, which may be dropped out without necessitating any change of the residue. The feature of a nonpartisan election was embraced in a single chapter, in the revision, which can be dropped out without any change in the residue of the code. The other objectionable feature was the provision for selection of subordinate officers by a Commission,-known as the Merit System of appointment. I will state that that was so written in the revision of the code that it is impossible to use that code at all with that provision out, except the code be first entirely rewritten. Now, so far as the uniformity in legislation of this proposed bill is concerned, I have heard but one objection, one in addition to the objection indicated in the President's Address, that the population of villages and cities should be raised from 3,000 to a higher number. That change can be accomplished by a change of one word in but two sections of the entire bill. The other objection is, that the code recognizes population in two respects, and is objectionable because it does so, it being thought by certain gentlemen who are earnestly and anxiously in favor of a revision of the code in this respect, by which the classes of municipal corporations shall be entirely abolished, that it was a recognition of population in a way that it might lead to evil in the long run. Those two respects are that we determine and distinguish between cities and villages by population. Now, this Commission realizes that that is not a correct distinction between cities and villages, that when a municipal corporation assumes metropolitan airs, has a paid fire department, paid police force and water works system of its own, a gas plant and paved streets, it is entitled to be governed by the laws controlling the

management of the affairs of cities; and when it has less than these it should be governed as a village. But we found it impossible and we gave these gentlemen that made that objection to us six months to frame in distinct and definite legal language that distinction upon any other basis than population; and we failed to get any satisfactory definition. So that we view it as inevitable that we shall distinguish between cities and villages upon a basis of population.

Another objection was that we recognized population in our provision as to municipal ownership. We deemed it absolutely inadvisable, being in favor of that idea in a qualified way, to allow cities of less than 50,000 inhabitants to own or attempt to own their own street railways; and further, in fixing the amount of the maximum levy for municipal purposes, on account of the different aluations of real estate and property, for the purposes of taxation, in the different cities, we found that it was absolutely necessary to distinguish upon a basis of population between the maximum levies of the different cities. Now, it occurred to me that a suggestion of this kind would be proper: Since I regard that there has been no valid objection to the provisions of this bill upon the question of uniformity of legislation, and since personally I have no such pride in this matter that I am not willing to make any concession in favor of some enlightened legislation upon this question, I suggest that this Association appoint a committee, or select a committee, and empower it to examine this bill and report at the next meeting of this Association whether or not they recommend it, or, if it is necessary to change it, to change it in such respects, or suggest changes such as they regard essential in order that this Association may be earnestly and heartily in favor of the passage of that