BUCKEYE BARRISTERS
A Centennial History
Of the
Ohio State Bar Association
By
William R. Van Aken
Cleveland, Ohio
© Copyright 1980, Ohio State Bar Association
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Illustrations
Officers and Staff, Ohio State Bar Association
Special Committee on Centennial Celebration
About the Author
Foreword
Prologue: The Start of the Bar Associations
Chapter One: The Founding of the Ohio State Bar Association (1880)
Chapter Two: The Early Years (1880-1889)
Chapter Three: The ‗Nineties‘ (1890-1899)
Chapter Four: The New Century (1900-1913)
Chapter Five: Through the Great War and Beyond (1914-1919)
Chapter Six: The Roaring Twenties (1920-1929)
Chapter Seven: The Depression Years (1930-1939)
Chapter Eight: War and Peace (1940-1949)
Chapter Nine: Building for the Future (1950-1961)
Chapter Ten: Revolutions in the Law (1962-1970)
Chapter Eleven: A Century of Service (1971-1980)
Epilogue: The Second Century
Illustrations
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Case Hall, Cleveland, Ohio, site of the first meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association in 1880
Hotel Victory, Put-in-Bay, Lake Erie, site of many annual meetings of the Ohio State Bar
Association from 1888 to 1908
Breakers Hotel, Cedar Point, Ohio, site of many annual meetings of the Ohio State Bar
Association from 1910 to 1934
Hartman Building, Columbus, Ohio, which housed the first permanent headquarters of the Ohio
State Bar Association in 1919 and 1920
State House Annex, Columbus, Ohio, which housed the headquarters of the Ohio State Bar
Association from 1920 until 1961
Ohio Legal Center, Columbus, Ohio, the headquarters of the Ohio State Bar Association since
1961
Rufus P. Ranney, the first President of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1880-1881
William McKinley, a distinguished member of the Ohio State Bar Association
William Howard Taft, a distinguished member of the Ohio State Bar Association
Joseph A. Oths, President of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1979-1980
Loren E. Souers, President of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1980-1981
Joseph B. Miller, Executive Director of the Ohio State Bar Association in 1980
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
OFFICERS 1979-1980
Joseph A. Oths, President, Wellston
Loren E. Souers, President-elect, Canton
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
John M. Adams
Columbus
Thomas E. Norpell
Newark
Edward G. Marks
Cincinnati
John A. Howard
Elyria
Frank E. Bazler
Troy
John R. Barrett
Akron
George E. Schroeder
Ottawa
Norman W. Shibley
Cleveland
Alfred J. Cooper
Fremont
James W. Mumaw
Youngstown
Joseph W. Schilder
Sunbury
Richard L. Stephenson
New Philadelphia
Robert C. Acton
Springfield
Casimir T. Adulewicz
Steubenville
John A. Carnahan
Columbus
Walter M. Lawson, Jr.
Lima
Don E. Fuller
Chillicothe
Gary F. Frye
Marietta
Nelson Hague
Ashtabula
STAFF
Albert L. Bell
Counsel
Joseph B. Miller
Executive Director
Robert E. Fletcher
Legislative Counsel
William C. Moore
Director of Publications
Martin G. Hegele
Investigator
Denny L. Ramey
Assistant Executive Director
Gary N. Hunt
Director of Media Relations
William K. Weisenberg
Director of Government Affairs
James R. McMahon
Investigator
John R. Welch
Counsel
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
William R. Van Aken, Chairman, Cleveland
Sam D. Bartlo
Akron
Earl R. Hoover
Cleveland
Thomas J. Brady
Cleveland
William L. Howland
Portsmouth
George W. Coen
Lancaster
Fred J. Milligan, Sr.
Westerville
J. Roth Crabbe
Columbus
Hon. Charlton Myers
Marion
Allan B. Diefenbach
Akron
Kenneth M. Petri
Galion
James L. Elder
Cincinnati
Robert L. Quinn
Steubenville
Wendell A. Falsgraf
Cleveland
Thomas R. Swisher
Columbus
Robert L. Hausser
Marietta
Paul W. Walter
Cleveland
John W. Weaner
Definance
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
William R. Van Aken was born December 1, 1912 in Shaker Heights, Ohio, and has been a
life-long resident of that city. He is a graduate of Western Reserve University, having obtained
his law degree there in 1938. He was admitted to the bar that same year, and has practiced law in
Cleveland, Ohio ever since. He is a senior partner in the firm of Van Aken, Bond, Withers,
Asman & Smith. He and his wife, the former Dorothy Harrison, have four children.
The theme constantly recurs in this book that lawyers have a positive duty to serve their state
and country, their profession, and their community and fellow citizens. It is a theme in which
Bill Van Aken passionately believes, and he practices what he preaches—he is the living
embodiment of the lawyer dedicated to service.
His service to his city and state includes one term as a member of the Shaker Heights City
Council, and two terms as a member of the Shaker Heights City Council, and two terms as a
member of the Ohio House of Representatives. For many years he was a member of the Ohio
Republican State Central and Executive Committees.
His service to his profession has been long and varied. He is a member of the Bar Association
of Greater Cleveland, the Ohio State Bar Association, and the American Bar Association. He
joined the Ohio State Bar Association in 1938 and has been active every since. He has served on
many committees, including the Executive Committee. He was elected Vice President of the
Association in 1957 and President in 1958. He is a long-time Fellow of the Ohio State Bar
Foundation and was President of the Foundation from 1971 through 1976. He conceived the idea
of a national organization of bar foundations, and almost single-handedly brought into being the
National Conference of Bar Foundations, which is now an established and useful adjunct to the
American Bar Association. He remains active in the National Conference, and still serves on the
Board of Trustees of the Ohio State Bar Foundation. He is a Vice President and member of the
Board of the Ohio Bar Title Insurance Company. He is also Chairman of the Ohio Sate Bar
Association‘s Centennial Committee.
Bill Van Aken‘s record of service to his community and fellow citizens is equally impressive.
He played semi-pro baseball from 1934 to 1938 and has maintained a life-long interest in the
national sport. He has been an active supporter of the Little League movement, and is a Life
Member of the Shaker Heights Boys League. He is an Elder of the Presbyterian Church. He is a
Vice President of the Ohio Information Committee. He is a former Chairman of the Board of
Heather Hill Hospital. Also, Bill has always been vitally interested in preserving our heritage,
and is a former President of the Shaker Historical Society and a former President of the
Northeastern Ohio Inter-museum Council.
With all of his accomplishments, Bill Van Aken is a modest man. His manuscript for this
book was notable for the scarcity of references to his own considerable part in the history of the
Ohio State Bar Association—some of the references to him in the finished work were inserted by
the editor without his knowledge. Let it be recorded, also, that this very sketch of him would not
have appeared here if the editor had not insisted on his editorial prerogative and inserted it.
The organized bar of Ohio and the nation has been singularly blessed with men like Bill Van
Aken. We pray that he will continue for years to come to lend his aid and counsel to the affairs
of the legal profession.
Thomas R. Swisher, Editor
FOREWORD
Henry Adams in his History of the United States said, ―Perhaps no good historian was ever a
good lawyer: whether any good lawyer could be a good historian might be equally doubted.‖ The
quotation is apt, and points up the problems faced by a lawyer when he enters the literary field,
especially when his avowed purpose is to write a history book. I therefore undertook the task
with a good deal of trepidation—and a limited knowledge of the magnitude of the work.
Anniversaries are a time to look back. As 1980 is the Centennial Year of the Ohio State Bar
Association it was my purpose to review the record of this great professional organization—to
examine its successes, its failures, the men and women who participated in its work, and how
this work was interwoven with the growth and progress of the Buckeye State.
When I was finished, I had gained a prideful realization of the tremendous contributions
which the legal profession in general and the Ohio State Bar Association in particular have made
to the state of Ohio. They have made these contributions in the courtrooms, in the offices of the
city, state and federal governments, in the halls of the legislature and the Congress, in civic,
charitable, educational and religious organizations, and even on the battlefield in defense of their
country. Their accomplishments through 100 years of service stand out as shining examples for
the young men and women entering the profession today.
My path to finishing this work might have proved impossible had it not been smoothed by the
splendid cooperation of many, many people. My heartfelt thanks go to all of them. Space will not
permit me to name them all, but some deserve particular recognition in these pages.
I am, first of all, eternally grateful to my wife, Dorothy, and my daughter, Nancy, for their
patience and forbearance with my total silence and unresponsiveness during the long evenings of
the past eighteen months as I wrote the manuscript.
I express my particular thanks to all those whose contributions in time and talent helped make
this book a reality:
Miss Elizabeth A. Kuebler, who assisted me in researching the subject matter, and typed
almost half of the manuscript. Without her help as the deadline drew near, the task would not
have been completed in time;
Mrs. John T. Brown, William H. Fulton and Mrs. Lillian C. Vodrey, who read my drafts and
gave me the benefit of their constructive suggestions;
Arthur Fiske, who kindly permitted me the freedom of the Cleveland Law Library;
Mrs. Shirley Burk and Mrs. Kay Beres, my secretaries, who spent long hours typing part of
the manuscript;
Thomas R. Swisher, Director of the Ohio State Bar Foundation, who spent weeks of his time
editing the manuscript and proofing galleys, and whose considerable skill as a writer and editor
gave the manuscript a polish it would not otherwise have had;
Mrs. Joyce Sweptston of the Ohio State Bar Foundation, who typed the bulk of the edited
manuscript for the printer, and Mrs. Candy Hendry and Mrs. Harriet Baskin of the Ohio State
Bar Association, who typed substantial portions of it;
William C. Moore, Director of Publications and Bar Services for the Ohio State Bar
Association, who acted as production manager and mothered the book through the printing
process;
Many others at the Ohio Legal Center, who made a wide variety of contributions, especially
Joseph B. Miller, Executive Director of the Ohio State Bar Association, Mrs. Marion Burk, his
secretary, and James L. Young, Director of the Ohio Legal Center Institute.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to those past Presidents of the Ohio State Bar
Association who furnished me with accounts of their years in office, and gave me insights into
the history of the Association which I could not have gained in any other way.
William R. Van Aken
PROLOGUE
THE START OF THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS
“… to restore the honor, integrity, and fame of the profession in its manifestations of the Bench
and of the Bar.”
William Maxwell Evarts
***
When tracing the history of the Ohio State Bar Association a single thread is readily discerned
running through the whole: the manifest desire of five generations of lawyers to achieve and
maintain the highest standards for legal education and scholarship, admission to the bar, the
practice of law, conduct and discipline of attorneys, and the administration of justice.
This quest for excellence in the bench and bar animated the Association‘s founders and
continues to inspire their successors, but in 1880 the leading lawyers of Ohio felt a special
urgency for reform of the profession. The immediate cause for their concern was that an
imperfect system of legal education and a lax admissions policy had resulted in a number of
uneducated, unskilled and even unscrupulous persons being admitted to the practice of law. This
problem did not spring up overnight, but had its roots in the beginnings of the Republic.
The Decline of the Legal Profession, 1781 - 1870
In his history of the bar, The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times (West Publishing
Company, 1953), Roscoe Pound noted that on the even of the American Revolution the legal
profession in most of the colonies was well-educated and well-qualified, and stood high in the
public esteem. With the Revolution, however, the legal profession began a long period of
decline. The war itself seriously decimated the bar—as many as one-third of all colonial lawyers
remained loyal to the Crown and left the country during or immediately after the hostilities. The
end of the war brought severe economic depression. Debts went unpaid, creditors became
panicky, and lawsuits multiplied. Attachment and imprisonment for debt increased, and the
sufferings of debtors brought widespread hostility toward lawyers who, of course, brought the
lawsuits. The law itself came into disrepute, because it was seen as an instrument of oppression
inherited from the hated English. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that many states,
Ohio among them, forbade the use of the common law altogether, or at least such of it as postdated the settlement of Jamestown. The knowledge and administration of the common law
required special training, and it was thus part of the mystery of the legal profession. Discarding
its use contributed to a growing trend toward de-professionalization, even though the
prohibitions against it were forgotten or ignored in course of time.
The law was not the only profession to suffer during the early years of the United States.
Professions generally were in decline. A frontier mentality held that any man could do anything
to which he cared to turn his hand. A wave of popular feeling which exalted the powers of the
common man crested with the election of Andrew Jackson, whose political creed tended to be
impatient with formal education and thus with educational preparation for the bar, and seemed to
imply that all male citizens had the inalienable right to practice law. As Roscoe Pound observed,
―the feeling was strong that all callings should be on the same footing, the footing of a business,
a money-taking calling. To dignify any one calling by styling it a profession seemed
undemocratic and un-American.‖ Because of its effect on the bar, Pound characterized the period
from the 1830‘s to the 1870‘s as, ―the era of decadence.‖
Just prior to the Revolution serious study of the law in preparation for the bar had been a
necessity, and candidates generally were required to demonstrate their proficiency before being
admitted to practice. The result of the long period of de-professionalization following the
Revolution was that, gradually, scholarship came to be viewed as an affectation, legal education
degenerated into an easy apprenticeship at best, and standards for admission to practice were
relaxed into virtual non-existence. At the beginning of the 19th century, 14 out of 19 states
imposed definite requirements for study in preparation for the bar. By 1840 only 11 out of 30
states, and by 1860 only 9 out of 39 states had any such requirement. Ohio was the only state
west of the Alleghenies to retain any semblance of an educational prerequisite, but it amounted
only to a requirement that a candidate for admission to the bar produce an attorney‘s certificate
to the effect that the candidate had ―regularly and attentively studied law.‖ There was no
necessity that the attorney making the certificate be the preceptor under whom the candidate had
―read law‖, and it was not uncommon for certificates to be given out as a favor or for a fee, with
little or no inquiry into the candidate‘s actual qualifications. Some states abolished all
educational requirements for admission to the bar—in 1851 Indiana actually wrote into its
Constitution that, ―Every person of good moral character who is a voter is entitled to practice law
in any of the courts of the state.‖
By 1870 the bar in the United States had probably reached its nadir. There were many welltrained, competent, responsible lawyers, but there were also inept hacks, pettifoggers and
scoundrels who had gained easy admission to the profession and were suffered to remain from
inertia or because the machinery to discipline them was ineffective or non-existent. Competent
attorneys often spent much of their time (and the courts‘ time) either correcting, or bringing
lawsuits upon the mistakes of unqualified practitioners. Pettifoggers took advantage of
procedural intricacies to trap defendants or stall off plaintiffs. ―Following the hearse‖—attending
funerals to solicit probate business—was a form of ambulance chasing known in that day. The
word ―shyster‖ as an epithet for an unethical attorney originated just before the Civil War,
coming, so it is said, from a certain lawyer in New York City named Scheuster (pronounced
―shoyster‖) whose underhanded tactics so enraged a judge that he began to reprimand any
attorney using similar tactics for engaging in ―Scheuster practices.‖
The Bar Association Movement
Various types of bar organizations and ―meetings‖ had come and gone since colonial times,
but bar associations as we understand them today did not begin to flower until the 1870‘s. The
universal purpose of these new associations was reform: of the profession; of the judiciary; and
of the law itself.
Vast social, political and economic forces were stirring in the United States in the period
following the savage bloodletting of the Civil War. It was a time of growing pains, when
established institutions and old values were being put to severe new tests. Science and invention
were producing a succession of seeming miracles. Business and industry were expanding at a
dazzling, incredible pace. Immigration was swelling the population. Railroads were feverishly
building the links to bring even the nether parts of the country within easy reach. The new era
was bringing enormous benefits, but not without price. The increase in lawlessness which
inevitably follows Great War was especially severe in the period of expansion following the
Civil War. The merciless competition for a larger share of the new wealth put a premium on
sharp dealing, and corruption in both the public and private sectors was rife.
It was concern with corruption both within and outside the legal profession, and the prospect
of killing two birds with one stone, which spurred the leaders of the New York City bar to
organize the first bar association in the modern mold. In 1870, New York City was firmly in the
grip of the Tweed ring, whose thieveries from the public treasury were as blatant as they were
enormous. Some of the key members of the ring were lawyers, including William Marcy ―Boss‖
Tweed himself, and at least three judges. A concerted campaign to discipline the bar‘s lower
edge was seen as a way not only to purge the profession of dishonest lawyers and judges, but
also as a way to crack the Tweed ring. Thus it was that the leading lawyers in New York came to
found the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
The Association‘s immediate objective was to raise the probity of the new York City bar by
ridding it of dishonest practitioners - as one of the founders, William Maxwell Evarts, expressed
it, the first order of business was to ―… restore the honor, integrity, and fame of the profession in
its manifestations of the Bench and of the Bar.‖ The Association was in no doubt, however, as to
the main reasons for the state of the legal profession. Accordingly, its long-term goal was to
reverse the long process of de-professionalization, by upgrading the standards for legal
education, admission to practice, and conduct and discipline of attorneys.
Concrete results were soon forthcoming. Through a series of successful prosecutions,
disbarments, and forced resignations from the bar, the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York was instrumental in helping bring down the Tweed ring. The success was forcefully
brought to public attention throughout the country by the press, which in the excitement of the
fight against the Tweed ring gave the Association wide and favorable publicity. The effect was to
arouse lawyers everywhere to the potential of an effective bar association for reform. Local, then
state bars began to follow New York City‘s example and organize. The spirit of association was
in the air.
First Organizations in Ohio
The bar association movement took early root in Ohio, and first manifested itself in the
formation of local bar associations. The Franklin County Bar Association had been formed in
1869, primarily as a law library society, but it quickly metamorphosed into a bar association
along the New York lines. The Cincinnati Bar Association was organized in 1872, and was
characterized by Roscoe Pound as, ―… one of the first fruits of the example set in New York.‖
The Cleveland Bar Association was formed in 1873, with stated purposes closely paralleling
those in the charter of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. The Akron Bar
Association was formed in 1875 and the Toledo Bar Association in 1878.
State Bar Associations
The movement spread to embrace the bars of entire states, and even the national bar. The New
Hampshire Bar Association was organized in 1873. The bars of the District of Columbia and
Iowa formed associations in 1874. In 1876, the Connecticut and New York State Bar
Associations were formed. Illinois followed suit in 1877. In 1878, the American Bar Association
was founded, partly for the purpose of encouraging the formation of state bar associations, and in
that same year state associations were organized in Alabama, Nebraska, new Jersey, Vermont
and Wisconsin. The Missouri Bar Association came into being in 1880.
Also, in 1880, the Ohio State Bar Association was born.
CHAPTER ONE
THE FOUNDING OF
THE OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
“The formation of a State Bar Association is calculated to carry into effect that determination to
cement a closer alliance between the members of the bar in all parts of the state “ to be attended
with the consequence of giving unity and force to such deliberate recommendations as the bar may
see fit to make to the authorities having in charge the making of the laws and the executing of the
laws; to examine themselves; to look over the whole ground and see what abuses exist, if any, and
to take measures unitedly to reform them”
Rufus P. Ranney
***
The Invitation and the Response
It was the lawyers of Cuyahoga County who set the stage for a statewide organization of
lawyers and judges in Ohio.
Being firmly convinced that the establishment of an organized bar was essential to the
improvement of the bar, the bench, and the administration of justice in Ohio, the executive
Committee of the Cleveland Bar Association took action. At this meeting on March 6, 1880, it
adopted the following resolution:
Resolved: That it is the sense of this Association that a Sate Bar Association be
formed and that the corresponding Secretary correspond with the various city and
county associations in the State upon the subject to obtain if possible their
cooperation.
Pursuant to that resolution the secretary issued an invitation to a selected list of Ohio lawyers
to meet in the Forest City, as Cleveland was then known, to consider the formation of such an
organization.
The Cincinnati Bar Association received its invitation in June, and a meting was called by the
secretary of that group on July 7. Fifteen members were in attendance, and each of them plus
five other members of the bar in Hamilton County were appointed as delegates to the Cleveland
meeting. As time was short, they boarded a north-bound train immediately.
The response from Cincinnati was not atypical. Lawyers from the other counties of the state
as well began to converge on Cleveland. Over 400 lawyers gathered in Case Hall in Cleveland
on July 8, 1880, to lay the foundation of an organization that in the intervening years has had a
more profound effect upon the lives of Ohioans than any other group of its kind.
Cleveland and Case Hall
It was altogether fitting that the Forest City should be the meeting place. The sleeping giant of
the Western Reserve was awakening. Its population had jumped to 160,146 in 1880, an increase
of fifty-eight percent over that of the previous federal census. It was emerging as the major
industrial center of Ohio, and ranked fifteenth in the nation in manufacturing. The year 1880 saw
the founding of Case School of Applied Science, as well as the gift from Amasa Stone that
prompted the removal from Hudson to Cleveland of Western Reserve College. The world‘s first
electric street light had been turned on in Public Square the previous spring. Euclid Avenue, with
its spacious mansions, was considered the show place of the world. Finally, there was a special
treat for the lawyers gathering there, with their inherent bent for politics. Cleveland was then the
political center of gravity of the United States, because a local lawyer and native son of
Cuyahoga County, General James A. Garfield, was the Republican nominee for President.
Case Hall, the mecca for the Buckeye barristers, occupied a special place in the annals of the
First City. Modeled after Faneuil Hall in Boston, and built by the Case family on the northwest
corner of superior Avenue and east 3rd Street, the five-story structure was completed in 1867.
For twenty years it was the cultural center of Cleveland. There appeared Henry Ward Beecher,
Mark Twain, William Ingersoll, Harriet Beeher Stowe, Horace Greeley, Bret Harte, susan B.
Anthony andThomas Nast, as well as numerous stars of opera and drama. Case Hall also housed
the Cleveland Public Library, and the Dr. Jared P. Kirtland scientific collection that was the
nucleus of the city‘s first natural history museum.
The Delegates
The lawyers gathered in Cleveland for the organization of the Ohio State Bar Association
were a distinguished group.
Chief among them was Rufus P. Ranney, who had joined in issuing the call for the meeting
and who became the first president of the new association. He was born in Massachusetts in
1813 and came west with his family to settle in Portage County in 1822. He attended Western
Reserve College at Hudson, then traveled to Jefferson in search of employment. there he met
Benjamin F. Wade, who invited Ranney to study law in his office and took him in as a partner
after his admission to the bar (Wade later went to the United States Senate, and was President
pro tempore of that body. If the impeachment of Andrew Johnson had succeeded Wade would
have become President of the United States). the partnership lasted but a few years, and Ranney
moved to Warren where he took up the practice. In 1850, he was elected a delegate to the Ohio
Constitutional Convention and contributed substantially to the work of that body. Later in that
year he was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court. he resigned in 1856, but politics called again in
1859 and he accepted the gubernatorial nomination of the Democratic Party. The progress of his
campaign for that high office was such that the Republican Party sent out an emergency call to
one of its rapidly rising national leaders, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln accepted the invitation and
came to Ohio and delivered several speeches in behalf of William Dennison, the Republican
candidate, who emerged the victor. Ranney then ran successfully for the Supreme Court against
his Cleveland law partner, Franklin T. Backus, for whom the law school of Case Western
Reserve University was named. He served until 1865 when he resigned again to take up the
practice of law in Cleveland. Ranney died in 1891, having earned a reputation for honor,
integrity and devotion to his chosen profession, where he was acknowledged as an outstanding
practitioner and leader.
Samuel E. Williamson was the scion of a distinguished Cleveland family. When his
grandfather arrived in Cleveland, the population rose to 57 persons. The grandfather sent his son
to Washington College in Jefferson, Pennsylvania. The son, Sam Williamson, Jr., was the first
resident of the small village to attend college and he became successively a lawyer, county
auditor, councilman, state legislator, county prosecutor, and president of the Society for Savings.
Obviously his son, Samuel E. Williamson, was marked for success. The young Williamson was
born in the family homestead on the site of the present Williamson building on Cleveland‘s
Public Square. He graduated from Western Reserve College in 1864. He read law in his father‘s
office, and then took courses at Harvard Law School. His career was marked with a succession
of high honors: Judge of the Court of Common Pleas; general counsel for the Nickel Plate
Railroad; head of the legal department of The new York Central Railroad; an incorporator of the
Case School of Applied Science; founder of University School (a private school for boys) and
the Cleveland Law Library; and a trustee of Western Reserve University, the Society For
Savings, and The First Presbyterian Society in Cleveland.
Senaca O. Giswold was another in the group of eminent lawyers and jurists assembled in Case
Hall. Born in Connecticut and educated at Oberlin College, Griswold embarked upon a teaching
career. He abandoned that calling to study law in Cleveland, and was admitted to the bar in 1847.
After serving in the Legislature, he was elected a judge of the short-lived Superior Court of
Cuyahoga County. Griswold was one of the founders of the Cleveland Law Library and its first
president. As a lawyer, Griswold received wide acclaim when he, along with other leaders of the
Cleveland Bar, volunteered to defend a group of prominent citizens who were indicted and later
convicted of violating the fugitive slave law.
From Hamilton County came General Jacob d. Cox, a Canadian by birth and a graduate of
Oberlin College. Cox started his law practice in Warren, but later moved to Cincinnati where he
achieved success as a lawyer, teacher, military man and statesman. His first public office was
that of State Senator. With the outbreak of the Civil War, he joined the Union Army and rose to
rank of Major General. In 1865, he was elected governor of Ohio. President Ulysses S. Grant
appointed him Secretary of the Interior, which office he filled with distinction. Although
numerous high appointive political positions were tendered to him, Cox declined them all and
returned to the Queen City, where he served as Dean of the Cincinnati Law School.
Also from Hamilton County came Stanley Matthews, a native son of Cincinnati. Matthews
graduated from Kenyon College, and then studied law in his home town from 1840 to 1842. He
went to Tennessee where he was admitted to the bar and edited a weekly newspaper. Returning
to Cincinnati, he was appointed an assistant county prosecutor and continued his newspaper
career as editor of the Morning Herald. His experience in the prosecutor‘s office whetted his
political appetite, and he became successively Clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives, Judge
of the Common Pleas Court, member of the Ohio Senate, United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Ohio, and United States Senator. Matthews served as counsel before the
electoral Commission in the Hayes-Tilden dispute of 1876. In 1881 he was appointed Associate
Justice of the United States Supreme Court, where he served until 1889. Matthews was obviously
devoted to the legal profession. Not only did he assist in organizing the Ohio State Bar
Association, but he, along with a Hamilton County colleague, George Hoadley, were among the
fourteen lawyers who two years earlier had issued the invitation which led to the organization of
the American Bar Association.
George K. Nash was born in Medina County in 1842. He was educated at Western Reserve
College and Oberlin, and then taught school while studying law. He served as an editor of the
Ohio State Journal. Later, Nash became Prosecutor of Franklin County and then went to the Ohio
Supreme Court. Thereafter he served two terms as Governor of Ohio.
Martin D. Follett was a delegate from Washington County. Born in Vermont in 1826, he was
an honor graduate of Marietta College, and was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1858. He was
elected to the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1883.
Luther Day was a distinguished member of the bar of Portage County. He was born in New
York State in 1813, and attended Middlebury College. Moving to Ohio he was admitted to the
bar in 1840. Like many of his contemporaries Day entered politics, and was elected Prosecutor
of Portage County, then Judge of the Common Pleas Court. He interrupted his civil career to
serve as a Judge Advocate in the Union Army in 1862. The following year Judge Day won
election to the Ohio Senate. After a year in the Senate he became Judge of the Ohio Supreme
Court, where he served for twelve years. During part of his tenure on the Supreme Court he
served as acting Chief Justice.
From Athens County came Charles H. Grosvenor, a hero of the Civil War. Grosvenor was
born in Connecticut in 1833 and came west with his family as a young child. He attended school
in a log cabin and then taught school himself. He undertook the study of law and was admitted to
the bar in 1857. When the Civil War broke out, Grosvenor enlisted as a private and rose to the
rank of colonel. He was brevetted a brigadier general for gallant and meritorious service.
Returning to civil pursuits, he was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives, where he
served a term as Speaker. Grosvenor was elected to Congress in 1885 and served three terms. He
was elected again in 1893 and remained in Congress until 1970.
Clearly, the conclave in Case Hall included some of Ohio‘s most distinguished lawyers. Many
of them were then, or were on their way to becoming the political and judicial leaders of the
state.
Keynotes
The tone of the first convention, as well as the direction of the new association in the years to
come, was set by Judge Rufus P. Ranney, who delivered the welcoming address.
Down through the years each president of the Ohio State Bar Association has prefaced his
annual address with an apology for imposing his remarks on the membership. The custom began
with Judge Ranney, who prefaced his address to the convention delegates with just such an
apology. He need not have apologized, for his speech was challenging, and to the point. He
began by reminding his listeners why they were there, and then outlining what the purposes of
the state bar association in Ohio ought to be (see the quotation at the beginning of this chapter,
immediately following the title). He then underscored the great responsibilities of lawyers, and
what the members of the legal profession must do to be of lawyers, and what the members of the
legal profession must do to be faithful to their trust. He emphasized the duty of the profession to
police itself. He spoke of the duty of the bench and bar to take the lead in improving the
administration of justice, and outlined specific problems which demanded their immediate
attention. The effect of his remarks was to chart the course which the Ohio State Bar Association
has followed for a century. In retrospect, much of his speech seems prophetic; much of it dealt
with matters which were not new then, but yet even today seem fresh and appropriate. Witness
some examples of his remarks:
On the nature of the practice of law—‖If you will reflect for a single moment that the duties
of the lawyer are simply a succession and combination of trusts reposed in him by others, it will
then be apparent to you that you all should be faithful to your trusts … Did you ever reflect that
the courts of justice are allowed to be approached only by members of your own body? … You
therefore occupy a semi-official relation to the people of the state, and you ought in all
conscience, occupying that position under the laws of the state, and commissioned by the state
alone to appear in the courts of justice and vindicate the rights which are there in question, to
consider yourselves as servants of the highest order for the promotion of the public interests …
What is it that the members of the bar and the gentlemen upon the bench are called upon
constantly to deal with and administer? One of the grandest sciences known in the whole list, an
applied science—applied a thousand times every day to the concerns of men in society …‖
On the legal profession and the public—‖The bar of the state of Ohio will hereafter, in
public estimation, be just about what the bar sees fit to make it. If the members of the bar will
impress upon the public at large that honor, integrity and ability are found in the bar and will be
maintained there, and that the public may rely that in all their connection with them they will
find these great and indispensable qualities of the lawyer in the bar of the state, there need be no
apprehension that the public at large will not accord them full credit for it.‖
On the judiciary—‖ … from the bar is drawn the bench. The bench will be exactly what the
bar is—never more, and certainly ought never to be less.‖
On legal education and preparation for the bar—‖An education … for the bar now, should
be of the same character as the education conferred in the higher institutions of the country, in
any of the great sciences which have received such an impetus, and which now are so generally
brought home to all cultivated and educated men … The student, therefore, of the future, the
lawyer of the future, must be the man who can stand upon a science applied to man in society,
and understand the great principles which underlie his profession rather than the man who is
familiar with forms only, and has a very poor appreciation of the principles of the science which
he is called upon to administer.‖
On professional skill and continuing education—‖I only require that before one takes upon
his hands the administration of the great trusts which involve the rights of the widow and the
orphan, the rich and the poor, the great and the small, he shall be competent to begin the task, at
least, which the business of his life imposes upon him, and above all that it shall be carefully
seen that he comes with that ambition which from day to day adds to his knowledge of this great
science, and brings that integrity above all things upon which all men may rely.‖
On legal services for the poor— ―The poor, the unfortunate, the ignorant, those who cannot
take care of themselves, will abound in every community, and be found by every lawyer in every
community. It is a beautiful feature, therefore, of the action of the bar and its members that when
they find cases of that sort they should extend that charity which all men owe to all men, and that
they should never turn away from a man who needs their advice to set him in the right, or who
needs their efforts to vindicate the plain rights he may have because he is not able to pay for … I
would as soon justify a doctor who should turn away from the sick child of a widow because she
could not pay his fee, and leave it to die, as I would a lawyer who had it in his power to set the
poor man right, or, if it need be, to vindicate his rights through the tribunals of the country.‖
On justice delayed— ―[The] administration of justice in Ohio has come to be very
unsatisfactory, especially in the appellate courts … ordinarily a case commencing in the courts of
common pleas and taking its way, as every controverted case may, through all the courts in
which it can go, stands a very small change of being finally determined before five or six years
after its commencement … I say to allow such a state of things to continue is certainly a very
great abuse … I, therefore, invite the members of the bar to an attentive consideration of this
most important subject, to find, in the first place, where the fault lies, in what it consists, and
then … to go to the people or to the constituted authorities, and laying bare the truth of the case,
call for the correction of the great evil to which I have alluded.‖
On Lawyer discipline— ―You cannot bring vice and incompetency up; they simply drag you
down, and the bar will manifest itself to the community as worthy to be trusted when the
community sees that it deals with an unsparing hand with those who abuse the high trust which
the position imposes upon them … [It is the duty of the bar] to bring before the constituted
tribunals every delinquent in its ranks, and set him outside of it …‖
Judge Ranney concluded his remarks by reinforcing what were clearly his priorities for the
new association—to see that from that time forward only competent men of high integrity should
be permitted to practice the profession of law.‖
―… I leave you to consider whether your own interests, the interests of those who are leaning
upon you, as the whole community does and must, the interests of the great state you inhabit …
do not all demand that you should concur, after full discussion and full understanding, in
supplying worthy associates while you live and in providing worthy successors when you and I
have passed away—in bringing to the bar and to the administration of this great science men who
are worthy to carry upon their shoulders the great responsibilities it imposes and the high
confidence the community repose in them, and whether, with this sort of feeling, you are going
to permit that the wolves who find their way into your flock shall remain there, not only to
degrade and disgrace you, but to prey upon a confiding community … and whether you will not
deem it a matter of honor, duty and conscience alike to see that the bar is purified … and
[whether you will not be] very careful to see that there is no introduction of persons hereafter
into the body that are not able to discharge these great and important trusts in a conscientious and
enlightened manner.‖
Following his address Judge Ranney, who had been named temporary chairman of the
convention, announced the formation of three committees: on credentials; on permanent
organization; and on the order of business. The delegates then adjourned until the afternoon,
when the real business of the convention was slated to begin.
The New Association Takes Shape
The delegates reconvened in Case Hall promptly at 2:00 P.M. Amos Denison, Chairman of
the Committee on Credentials, read the list of 164 duly accredited delegates to the convention.
Over 400 lawyers were present but, although their presence was no doubt welcome, not all of
them had been invited as delegates. The invitation to attend the convention had called for each
county to send one delegate for each ten lawyers in the county, but many counties had sent more
representatives than the invitation had specified. Later in the afternoon a motion to extend
delegate privileges to all judges present was adopted, but a motion to extend similar privileges to
all lawyers present was defeated.
Durbin Ward, Chairman of the Committee on Permanent Organization, gave the report of the
committee recommending a slate of officers for the convention. Rufus Ranney was named as
convention President.
A Committee on Constitution and By-Laws was named, with the delegates from each of the
state‘s ten judicial districts selecting their own representative to the Committee. The committee
was then given ―leave to retire and consult.‖ It is plain that they had done their homework well in
advance, since they retired only long enough to permit Judge William White to regale the
convention with ―an entertaining and instructive address upon our judiciary and judicial reform‖
during their absence. When they returned to the floor, S. A. Bowman, on behalf of the
committee, presented the convention with a proposed constitution which was a polished
document containing no less than eighteen articles or sections, and occupying almost five printed
pages. It provided: a procedure for electing new members; for a president, ten vice presidents
(one for each of the state judicial districts), a secretary and a treasurer; for an executive
committee; for standing committees on admissions, judicial administration and legal reform,
legal education, grievances, and legal biography; for annual meetings; and for amendments. It
also provided or an admission fee of $2, plus annual dues of $2. The new association was to be
called, ―The Ohio State Bar Association‖.
The statement of objects in the proposed constitution is illuminating:
―The Association is formed to advance the science of jurisprudence, to
promote reform in the law, to facilitate the administration of justice, to uphold
integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession, to encourage thorough liberal
legal education, and to cultivate cordial intercourse among the members of the
bar.‖
This statement is interesting from two standpoints. First, it was very closely modeled on the
statement of purposes in the constitution of the newly formed American Bar Association. This is
not surprising, since a key member of the committee, Stanley Matthews of Cincinnati, had been
one of the organizers of the convention which led to the formation of the American Bar
Association two years before in 1878. Second, the statement‘s emphasis is strongly on serving
the public interest—an intention to serve lawyers‘ self-interest is remarkable by its absence. It is
a tribute to the draftsmen‘s eloquence and foresight that, a century later, their language remains
in the statement of objects of the Ohio State Bar Association.
A few amendments to the proposed constitution were offered and lost, and the report of the
Committee on the Constitution and By-Laws was adopted by the convention, nemine contra.
Although the afternoon was then wearing on and much had been accomplished, the delegates
wished to round out the day‘s business by filling the offices called for in the newly adopted
constitution. A motion to adjourn was ignored, and a nominating committee constituted which,
―on leave, retired, and after a brief consultation made … [its] report on officers of the association
…‖ The committee‘s report was unanimously adopted, and its proposed slate of candidates
became the first officers of The Ohio State Bar Association. They were:
President
Rufus P. Ranney, Cleveland
Vice Presidents
Stanley Matthews, Cincinnati
George W. Houk, Dayton
Henry Newbegin, Defiance
R. P. Buckland, Fremont
Leander J. Critchfield, Columbus
D. Dirlan, Mansfield
Samuel S. Knowles, Marietta
D. A. Hollingsworth, Cadiz
Luther Day, Ravenna
William Lawrence, Bellefontaine
Secretary
J. T. Holmes, Columbus
Treasurer
W. J. Boardman, Cleveland
Having elected their officers the delegates‘ thoughts turned to supper. William Lawrence
offered and moved the adoption of a resolution directing the Committee on Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform to prepare a plan to revitalize the state‘s judicial system, but
his motion and address in its support were greeted with a motion to adjourn until 8:00 P.M. that
evening, which was adopted.
That evening, ―… pursuant to adjournment, the association, with a large audience of ladies
and gentlemen, convened and listened to the address of Stanley Matthews.‖ The speech was a
fitting consummation to the events of the day. Vice President Matthews‘ main topic was
jurisprudence, on which he delivered a learned and cogent dissertation. he did not fail, however,
to remind the members of the newly-fledged Association of why they were there: ―Our purpose
today is to pledge our mutual cooperation in the search for and perfection of ideal justice,
vindicated among men by the establishment and practice of righteousness in human relations and
transactions, and illustrated in the sincerity,. unselfishness and probity of those who are called to
share in its administration.‖
The following morning was given over to completing the organization of the new association.
The members of the standing committees were named. William Lawrence‘s resolution (which
had been so cavalierly ignored the afternoon before) was again taken up and a substitute
resolution adopted. It directed the Committee on Judicial Administration and Law Reform to
prepare a plan to facilitate the administration of justice in the state, and to make its report at the
Association‘s next meeting.
That afternoon, at the invitation of the host Cleveland Bar Association, the delegates and their
families were treated to a ride on Lake Erie in the steamer Pearl.
The New Association and the Fourth Estate
Cleveland‘s newspapers gave excellent coverage to the convention. Speeches were printed at
length. Editorials commended the idea of a state bar association. Reporters busily interviewed
the delegates both at Case Hall and in the city‘s hostelries.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer saw an opportunity to implement its already vigorous campaign
against the Republican president candidate, General James A. Garfield. By limiting their
interviews to delegates who were members of the Democratic party, the Plain Dealer reporters
were able to create an impression of great enthusiasm for General Winfield S. Hancock, who had
been nominated at the Democratic National Convention in Cincinnati in June.
A reporter contacted Judge Lawrence T. Neal of Chillicothe who stated for publication,
―Garfield is not well known in our part of the state and consequently is not a strong man. In fact I
don‘t think he is well known anywhere in the state outside of the Western Reserve. There are not
a dozen Republicans in Ross County who know him personally, and they do not know him well.‖
This has a strange ring when it is recalled that Garfield was a Congressman when the General
Assembly elected him to the U.S. Senate in January, 1880. The people elected him President in
November, 1880, and he is the only man in the history of the Republic to hold three federal
offices in one year.
Two delegates were interviewed on the balcony of the Weddell House where Abraham
Lincoln had stood to address the people of Cleveland just 19 years before. One of the delegates,
J. A. McMahon of Montgomery County said, ―The Hancock and English excitement is at a fever
heat already down our way.‖ His friend, Henry Newbegin of Defiance County, added, ―It is
booming everywhere.‖
With the bar association organized, the constitution written and adopted, the officers elected,
the committees created and political prognosticating put aside, the delegates dispersed, having
appointed to meet next in Columbus on December 28, 1880.
The historic meeting thus came to a close.
CHAPTER TWO
THE EARLY YEARS
“We have been vindicated by the people and by a good, large majority.”
Stephen R. Harris
***
(referring to the adoption of the Judicial Reform Amendment of 1883, proposed
by the Ohio State Bar Association)
***
Attacking the Law’s Delays
The delegates to the second, or ―adjourned‖ meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association
convened December 28, 1880 in the Hall of the House of Representatives in the State House in
Columbus. It was here that Abraham Lincoln had addressed a joint session of the Ohio
Legislature just nineteen years before as he made his way to Washington for his inauguration as
President. The Speaker‘s chair, which Lincoln occupied on that occasion, still graces the
rostrum. One of the legislators who had heard Lincoln speak was then a newly elected state
senator from Portage County, James A. Garfield. But now, as the Buckeye barristers gathered in
Columbus, the one time state senator was the President-Elect of the United States.
The Committee on Membership opened the Association‘s second meeting with a particularly
noteworthy report. Recommended for membership from Canton, Ohio were two lawyers
destined for national prominence. One of them was William McKinley, Jr., who became
successively Stark County Prosecutor, Congressman, Governor of Ohio and President of the
United States. The other candidate for membership was William R. Day, who became Secretary
of State in McKinley‘s cabinet and later was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The two
applicants were admitted to membership. Also admitted that day were three men who founded
law firms still in existence, and which today are among the leading offices in their respective
areas. They are William B. Sanders of Cleveland, who was an original partner in Squire, Sanders
& Dempsey; J. W. Bannon of Portsmouth, who established the firm known now as Bannon,
Howland, McCurdy, Dever & Mearson; and Austin Lynch of Canton, founder of the firm of
Lynch, Pontius & Lynch.
The Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform wasted no time in setting a high
standard for its successors. Great concern had been expressed at the Cleveland meeting over
delay in the courts, and the Committee responded by drafting a resolution to amend Sections 5
and 6 of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. They wrote with such care that their proposal was
endorsed by the Association without alteration. Among its salient features were provisions: to
hold the election of judges of the Supreme Court on a different date than that for the election of
state officials; fixing the number of judges at nine; an attempt to create a bi-partisan court;
abolition of the district courts and a phasing-out of the Superior Courts; and the creation of a
Supreme Court Commission.
The proposal to separate the election of judges from the regular election met with some
resistance. Judge Rufus P. Ranney, President of the Association, overcame that resistance by
succinctly stating ―Judges would then be elected without the help of politicians, I trust in God,
for once.‖ All proposed amendments to the measure were defeated by the delegates.
***
The second annual meeting of the newly-organized Ohio State Bar Association was scheduled
for Toledo on July 6, 1881, but the meeting was postponed out of respect for President Garfield,
who was then struggling for his life after being struck down by an assassin‘s bullet (sadly, after
rallying briefly, he succumbed on September 19, 1881).
The issue of judicial reform topped the list of priorities of the new Association. The
Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform had been charged with presenting to
the legislature the proposed constitutional amendment endorsed by the Association the previous
December, and it had set about the task by memorializing the General Assembly concerning the
evils of the clogged dockets, and detailing the Association‘s proposed solution.
―The first question,‖ said the authors of the memorial, ―is whether these delays are to be
remedied by an increase in the judicial force or by a better organization of the working force
itself or whether both may be necessary.‖ The memorial then went on to pinpoint the cause of the
delay as the requirement that the common pleas judges should also sit as district court judges for
the purpose of reviewing the decisions of the trial court. This cut into the time the judges had
available for their work as trial judges. Moreover, since the judges were, in essence, reviewing
their own decisions, the district courts had come to be merely a way-station on the road to the
Supreme Court. The end result was that the Supreme Court‘s docket was woefully behind, and
was backing-up more with each passing month. The solution, said the memorial, was to abolish
the district courts and thereby relieve the common pleas courts of appellate duties: ―The common
pleas court is the great court of the state. It is the people‘s court—chosen by them and sitting in
their midst. It is the guardian of the hearthstone and the defender of life, character and property.
Well organized, pure and intelligent, their administration is such that the masses rarely go
beyond them. We earnestly invoke your honorable body to cherish them as the corner stone of
the whole system and to relieve them from all duties not pertaining to their own jurisdiction.‖
The proposed constitutional amendment was introduced in the General Assembly as Senate
Joint Resolution No. 77. But the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform was
mortified to have to report failure on its first encounter with the legislature. The Committee had
asked for—and received—the courtesy of a joint hearing before the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees. The legislators had listened politely, then had given the proposal a dignified but
private funeral. Baffles, the Committee informed the Association membership that its arguments
―…seemed to be favorably received, but for some reason not known to your committee, the
judiciary committee of the senate … never reported [the proposal] back to the senate, and no
further action [was] ever taken in the general assembly on the subject … Your committee
repeatedly pressed the matter on the attention of the senate judiciary and confidently hoped, up to
the close of the late session of the general assembly, to have favorable action on the proposition.‖
There were mixed opinions as to whether the Association should try again in the next General
Assembly. A motion was made to that effect. President Ranney opposed the motion on the
grounds that the Association had done its duty and it was now up to the legislature to act. L. A.
Russell of Cleveland supported it, ―contending that we should persist in the work we had
undertaken.‖ He suggested that the help of other professions, and particularly of the press, should
be enlisted to educate the public on the necessity for the constitutional amendment endorsed by
the Association. Debate became somewhat shrill. General A. C. Voris of Akron, ―proceeded at
some length to discuss the … proposed [constitutional amendment], contending that it was
defective and insufficient in may ways … He was frequently interrupted.‖ The impasse was
broken by L. J. Critchfield of Columbus, who suggested that the original plan endorsed by the
Association be recommitted to the Committee on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform with
instructions to reconsider the entire subject of court reorganization and report back to the
Association at the next annual meeting. His proposal was unanimously adopted.
The Toledo meeting offered a portent of the well-planned meetings for which that city is
famous. There was an address of welcome by John R. Osborn, President of the Lucas County
Bar Association. Several diversions were offered to the delegates. A visit to the Toledo Produce
Exchange, a banquet for the lawyers and judges and their wives and daughters at the Boody
House, and a boat trip to Put-in-Bay, highlighted the social side of the convention.
Conforming to the constitutional mandate, Judge Rufus P. Ranney delivered a comprehensive
and scholarly address. The foresight and perceptiveness of this great Ohio jurist is shown in the
following excerpt:
―Of all the agencies now operating, for good or evil, upon the laws and institutions of the
country, none equal that of the press. It employs an army of men, whose productions are read in
almost every house and hamlet in the country. It is, in a large sense, a public teacher; and as
such, how vastly important that its members should be instructed in that which they profess to
teach! Without it they can neither comprehend their own privileges, the obligations they owe the
public, nor the truth and soundness of that which they send out to be confided in by others.
―It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this institution; and simple justice
requires it to be said, that many of those engaged in conducting it are justly distinguished for
their learning, ability and conscientious regard for the rights of others. But still the reverse is true
of many others, and a better education is sadly needed. If better instructed, they would realize
that the freedom of the press is guaranteed for the public good, and not as a cover from which to
attack private reputations; that taking sides for one party or the other, before or during trial of
exciting cases, is a grave assault upon public justice; and finally, that while it is the natural right
and legal duty of the father of the family to protect his children from contamination of the air
they breathe, or poisoning the waters they drink, it is equally his right to be protected from those
streams of moral pollution which flow in upon them by the publication of disgusting details of
some controversies in the courts, necessary for the public peace to be settled, but wholly
improper for public information.‖
Judge Ranney had another observation which seems pertinent today. He cited Sir William
Blackstone‘s comment that it was perfectly amazing that there should be no other state of life, no
other occupation, art or science, in which some method of instruction is not looked upon as a
requisite, except only the science of legislation, the noblest and most difficult of any.
The presidential address also contained a comment worth repeating in an age when the search
for wealth and pleasure overshadows all else. Ranney said, ―the one great peril to our
institutions, and to our noble system of jurisprudence, as it seems to me, arises from the listless
inattention of the educated classes in their eager pursuit of wealth, to that which alone can make
their possessions of any value when acquired, and in their disposition to shirk the personal
performance of the most important public duties and cast them upon ignorant and incompetent
substitutes.‖
The Toledo meeting concluded with the adoption of by-laws to supplement the constitution,
and the election of Rufus King of Cincinnati as the second president. The Association now
boasted 391 members.
***
Having endured the summer heat in 1880 and 1881, the Executive Committee opted for a
winter meeting in Cincinnati in 1882.
The period between the 1881 convention and the December, 1882, session in the Queen City
had been a busy one of the Executive Committee. It had approved the by-laws drafted by a subcommittee appointed at the Toledo meeting in 1881. The question of incorporation of the Ohio
State Bar Association had been referred to the Executive Committee. After study, the group
recommended that the idea be dropped. In a controversial move the executive Committee
proposed that all future conventions be held in Columbus during the week between Christmas
and New Year‘s Day, because the location was central and the time would be less likely to
involve conflicts for the lawyers. The convention accepted the proposal by a vote of 22 to 18.
Judicial reform still led the list of priorities. In spite of the urging of the Association for
reform, justice in Ohio continued to be delayed. The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee reported that the Supreme Court had fallen an additional 261 cases behind in the past
two years. Chairman Durbin Ward reported a revised proposal for a constitutional amendment,
designed to: increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court; divide the Supreme Court into
two branches; and replace the district courts with circuit courts having appellate jurisdiction
similar to that of the Supreme Court plus other jurisdiction as might be provided by law. After
extended debate in which proposals for legislative action rather than a constitutional amendment
were made—the latter proposal was endorsed.
A motion to establish a college of law had been adopted at the Toledo meeting and referred to
the Committee on Legal Education. That group endorsed the idea and asked to hold the matter
for additional study. The idea that the law school should be under the supervision and control of
the Association was rejected.
The Committee on Legal Education also recommended that there be some standardization in
the law books to be used by students in preparing for the bar examination. Walker‟s American
Law, Blackstone‟s Commentaries and Kent‟s Commentaries, along with certain specialized texts
on the principal branches of the law, were suggested.
Rufus King, in his presidential address, reiterated the theme of his predecessors when he
summoned the bar to clean house. He said, ―… the bar is judged harshly, perhaps overmuch, by
its lower edge … they are the ‗drummers‘ and the fomenters of so much of the villainy and
vexation which are imputed to the body at large …‖ That warning set the tone for the Third
Annual Meeting, and perhaps is one which should be reviewed regularly at bar association
gatherings in every corner of the land.
***
Having sampled the facilities and hospitality of the hall of the House of Representatives in the
state capitol in the adjourned meeting of December 28, 1880, The Ohio State Bar Association
chose the more rarified atmosphere of the Senate Chamber for its annual meeting in 1883. The
President of the Association, the Honorable R. A. Harrison of Columbus, convened the first
session at 2:00 P.M. on December 26th, and delivered the annual address. He could point with
pride to the fact that the fledgling organization boasted 373 members and that the annual dues
and the admittance fee both remained at $2. Although the roster had increased steadily, it is
worthy of note that two of the most widely known lawyers in the state had not joined the
Association. They were former President Rutherford B. Hayes of Fremont and Alphonso Taft of
Cincinnati.
The main trust of Harrison‘s presidential speech was the need for the proper organization of
the judicial system and the extreme importance of providing proper remuneration in amounts
calculated to attract the best lawyers in the state to the bench.
President Harrison had a sense of history. Recognizing that few were then alive who had been
born in the eighteenth century, and that only a handful of the lawyers then active had enjoyed the
privilege of practicing with the giants of the bar who had been the architects of Ohio‘s political
and judicial systems, Harrison took steps to preserve that vital part of the history of our state. He
called upon M. Stuart of Ravenna, Judge William Lang of Tiffin, and Henry B. Curtis of Mt.
Vernon, to present addresses dealing with the careers, triumphs, and hardships, including
anecdotes, both humorous and poignant, of the leaders of the bar of Ohio from territorial days to
the time of the Civil War. Having thus been entertained, the convention reverted to the normal
business of receiving committee reports.
The report of the Executive Committee provided cause for jubilation, but also engendered a
sharp debate. The Association‘s revised proposal to amend the judicial article of the Constitution
had breezed through the legislature, and had been adopted by the electorate by an impressive two
to one margin. The campaign to secure its ratification had been expertly conducted: local
committees of association members had been appointed to see that the voters in their respective
areas were acquainted with the merits of the plan; circulars had been distributed; and newspaper
coverage had been secured. The report struck a sour note, however, by relating that, ―When it
was too late for the friends of the amendment to be heard a bitter attack upon the judicial article
was made by a portion of the newspaper press of the state. The motives of the framers of the
amendment were impugned, the article itself denounced, and the manner of its submission
criticized …. Your committee, who were mainly responsible for the manner of the submission of
this article, beg to place it here on permanent record that there was no intention on their part to
mislead or defraud any voter in Ohio …. Notwithstanding the opposition to the amendment, and
the fact that the attacks were made at so late a moment that no reply could be made, the
amendment was successfully carried and triumphantly ratified by the intelligent people of Ohio.‖
A debate on press relations ensured. A motion was made to delete the portion of the report
describing the press opposition to the constitutional amendment, on the ground that it would
antagonize the newspapers. Everyone present agreed that the press criticism had been malicious
misrepresentation. Nevertheless, one faction felt that, ―The best way to meet newspaper reports
is to ignore them. If this committee in their reports are to answer newspaper criticisms, they will
never get through with it.‖ There was no point, they said, in stirring the pot further because the
critics had already been rebuffed by the overwhelming passage of the amendment, and if the
controversy were kept alive, ―… the newspapers will have the last word.‖ Others felt that the
criticism had been so vindictive that the Executive Committee was at least entitled to say a word
in its own defense. Some were in a mood to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the critic and
hurl it back (apparently the criticism had emanated from the editor of one large newspaper). R.
D. Marshall of Dayton, a member of the Executive Committee, said that the committee only
mentioned the incident from a desire to tell the truth, and that in his opinion the account of it in
the report, ―was a mild way to put it, but we didn‘t intend to put it particularly mild.‖ He went on
to say that while the committee did not want to stir up controversy, nonetheless, ―my theory is
that, if a man insists on getting up a row, that he had better have it.‖ He was supported by S. R.
Harris of Bucyrus, who noted that, ―We all know that the writer of these articles evidently did
not know what he was talking about … I think the report is as mild as it should be … As a matter
of history—truthful history—I think it ought to stand just as it is.‖ In the end a compromise was
struck. The report was accepted with only a slight tempering of the language.
The meeting closed with the acceptance of the invitation of the Columbus Bar Association to
meet in the capital city on December 30th and 31st in 1884, and the election of General Durbin
Ward of Cincinnati and Lebanon as President. One final item in the report of the special
committee on candidates augured well for the future of the Association. The Secretary, J. T.
Holmes, was reappointed and given authority to employ an assistant at compensation to be fixed
by Holmes and the Executive Committee.
Toward the Efficient Administration of Justice
President Durbin Ward called the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association to
order in the Senate Chamber of the State House in Columbus on December 30, 1884.
Ward, a Civil War veteran, had left the practice in his hometown of Lebanon and taken up
residence in Cincinnati. There, he launched upon a career as a public speaker, with an occasional
return to the law.
True to the custom of the day, General Ward‘s presidential address was lengthy. His legal
training manifested itself at the outset when he offered a one-paragraph brief of his speech. His
subject was procedure, of which he said, ―… as an art, [it] is, of course, based on the science of
jurisprudence, and indeed, often, without professing to legislate, [it] originates and formulates
important rules of the science itself.‖ Ward‘s scholarly history of the court system (for that is
what it really was) traced, among other things, the origin of the jury system. It was in use among
the ancient tribes of northern Europe, and was ascribed to the mythical Wodin in Norse legend.
After some semblance of order developed, all of the freemen of the county were summoned to
the court to hear and also give testimony concerning the matter at issue and decide according to
their best judgment. Eventually, the jury of twelve evolved from this beginning.
One of the first items of business at the convention was to seek an improvement in the
physical conditions of the Supreme Court office and, in particular, its library. One delegate
reported that the books in the library were being destroyed. Leather binding was deteriorating
and had to be replaced every year. Furthermore, there was little or no working space in the room,
and the clerk‘s office contained no filing space. In the previous year, the judges of the Court had
drawn up a memorial and personally presented it to the Senate with a request for action, but
nothing whatever came of it. A motion was made to appoint a committee of three to investigate
the subject and make recommendations for necessary improvements to the space to the
legislature. The motion was adopted.
A provocative resolution was offered by Judge Green. It was simple and to the point, and said,
―Resolved, that by reason of the want of certainty, want of publicity, and want of convenience of
our law, the interests of the people demand that it be codified.‖ In support of his resolution,
Judge Green cited the cases appearing in Volumes 38, 39, and 40 of the Ohio State Reports. Of
those cases, 153 were affirmed and 163 were reversed, but their effect on the law was generally
unknown. ―… that kind of uncertainty ought not to exist …. the law ought to be codified and put
into a report so that we may know what it is …. If our precedents are not broad enough to cover
the field, let three or five men be appointed as a committee to codify the law into one volume.‖
Two sad events had taken place earlier in the year which commanded considerable space in
the report of the proceedings of the Association for the year 1884. The first was the death of one
of Ohio‘s greatest lawyers and judges, Noah H. Swayne. A memorial meeting was held in the
Supreme Court Room in June, and a resolution, prepared by some of the leading lawyers of the
day, noted that Justice Swayne was born in Virginia and received his legal training there, but left
the state because of the existence of slavery within its borders. Settling at Zanesville he was
admitted to the bar there, and later moved to Coshocton. There, he because Prosecuting Attorney
and Representative to the General Assembly. He was appointed United States Attorney by
President Andrew Jackson and took residence at Columbus, which was the seat of the U.S.
District Court. In 1862 Abraham Lincoln appointed Swayne to the Supreme Court where he
served for nineteen years.
One of the eminent Ohioans invited to participate in the Swayne memorial ceremony was the
noted jurist and legal author, Judge Joseph R. Swan. He regretfully declined, citing his deafness
and infirmities as the reason for his inability to attend. Six months later he himself died, and the
leaders of the bar of Ohio gathered at the Board of Trade rooms in the Columbus City Hall to
pay tribute to him. The resolution honoring his memory stated that he was born in New York
State and moved to Columbus in 1824 when the population of that city was eighteen hundred
souls. He studied law with his uncle and began the practice in the courts of Franklin and
adjoining counties. Judge Swan began his public career as Prosecuting Attorney. He moved from
that office to the Common Pleas Court where he served until his resignation in 1845. In 1854 he
was elected to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Judge Swan‘s courage was tested in 1859 when Ex Parte Bushnell, 9 Ohio State 78, reached
the high court. Anti-slavery feeling was running high in the Buckeye State at the time. A slave
had escaped and come to Ohio where slave hunters pursued and captured him, but some
abolitionists from Oberlin attacked the slave hunters and freed the captive. The abolitionists were
arrested by the federal marshall for violation of the federal fugitive slave law, and were
convicted in the U.S. District Court in Cleveland. An application for a writ of habeas corpus was
filed in the state supreme court, and the question of state sovereignty in conflict with federal
sovereignty was squarely presented. Excitement was at a fever pitch, and preparations for armed
conflict were made on both sides. By this time Swan was the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme
Court, and it fell to him to deliver the opinion of the Court which was concurred in by a bare
majority. He denied the writ, stating that the State could not interfere with the action of the
Courts of the United States within their ell-defined constitutional limits. To Chief Justice Swan it
was a simple question of law, and partisanship, sectional passions and personal beliefs had
nothing to do with it. The decision was the most important one of his career, and it cost him his
place on the high court. The Republican state convention refused him renomination.
Thus, the year of 1884 saw the passing of two of Ohio‘s greatest lawyers. Although neither of
them ever joined the Ohio State Bar Association, they were properly honored and revered by the
members of the Association with the impressive ceremonies referred to above, and their names
will live in the history of the legal profession of their adopted state.
***
The 6th Annual Meeting convened in the Montgomery County Superior Courtroom in Dayton
on December 29, 1885. President A. W. Jones of Youngstown, a former Lieutenant Governor,
called the session to order and immediately launched upon his presidential address. The deaths of
two of the founders of the Association, Judges Luther Day and John W. Okey, and of two of the
oldest practitioners in the State, H. B. Curtis of Mt. Vernon and Eben Newton of Canfield,
reminded Jones that much of the history of the early days of the bench and bar was slipping away
unrecorded. He, therefore, devoted a part of his address to recalling some of that history.
The first court in Ohio, Jones recalled, was held at Marietta on September 9, 1788, before
Judges Putnam and Tupper. As new counties were erected in the Northwest Territory, an inferior
court was created in each such county. It was known as the ―Quarter Sessions of Peace.‖ Three
justices-of-the-peace presided. That system prevailed until the adoption of the Constitution of
1802 and the admission of Ohio to the Federal Union of States. Under that document the judicial
power was vested in the Supreme Court, one Common Pleas Court for each county and justicesof-the-peace. The legislature was empowered to provide such other courts as might be needed. It
was under this power, and at the instigation of the Ohio State Bar Association, that the Circuit
Court was created as an intermediate appellate tribunal.
President Jones then undertook an examination of the court system. He commended the new
circuit court and its judges, but decried the fact that there were insufficient numbers of the latter
to do the work. The result was that they were laboring night and day to get through their dockets
and the results were not always satisfactory. ―Night court,‖ said Jones, ―were always a failure …
the Creator intended the day for labor, but the night for rest and sleep; and if this wise law of the
Creator is violated, the penalty surely follows.‖ He then called upon the assembled lawyers to
appeal to the legislature to provide additional judges.
The subject of quarters for the Supreme Court was again brought up, and the President
expressed his deep indignation. ―The rooms assigned to the Court are entirely inadequate and a
disgrace upon the State.‖ Referring to the consultation room in the State House where the five
judges met to discuss cases and prepare opinions, Jones said that one is forcibly reminded of
chickens in a crate going to market, or cattle in a car. ―It is high time that this Association were
taking action in this matter and calling the subject to the attention of the Legislature. It would
hardly seem possible that such a request would be refused.‖ President Jones was an optimist. In
spite of the persistent urging of him and his successors, the much needed judicial building was
still a quarter of a century in the future.
The convention proceeded to routine business. The President called upon Senator J. T.
Godfrey of Celina to assist him by acting as parliamentarian. Informality and candor
characterized the Senator‘s rulings—in response to an inquiry concerning the necessity for a
motion, he responded, ―I see nothing requiring it. I have given very little attention to the
Constitution and By-Laws governing this Association…‖
Convention planning committees today would be interested in the work that went into the
preparation for the Sixth Annual Meeting. R. D. Marshall, Chairman pro tem of the Executive
Committee, sent a communication to the convention in which it was stated that a meeting of the
group had been called at the Beckel House in Dayton to arrange for the annual meeting. Only
four members attended, and they took no action except to send out a circular announcing the
convention. The final sentence of the report is also worth nothing, ―No other meeting has been
held or action taken by the Committee this year.‖
A special committee had been appointed to study the question of divorce law. Unlike today‘s
Association committees, this one met for the first time on the night preceding the convention.
The concern of the group was threefold. First, what could be done about creating more
uniformity in divorce laws in the United States? Second, what changes were needed in Ohio‘s
divorce laws? Third, what could be done to provide uniformity in the practice and procedure in
the courts of Ohio in divorce cases? The questions were so difficult that the Committee requested
that it be granted continued life in order to study the subject in greater depth.
The report of the State Law Library Committee echoed the remarks of President Jones about
the need for adequate quarters for the Supreme Court. The Committee consisted of Judge W. J.
Gilmore, R. A. Harrison and L. J. Critchfield, all of Columbus. Their report sparked a lively and
entertaining discussion about the capitol building. The library facilities in the State House were
every bit as deplorable as those of the Supreme Court. In fact, some of the State Library books
had to be stacked in the courtroom at some cost to esthetics. The Committee recommended the
creation of a Department of Justice and the construction of a separate building to house it.
Taking exception to the report, a member suggested that a large wing be attached to both the
north and south ends of the capitol to make the entire structure in the shape of an ―H‖. He then
proposed that a dome be placed on top of what he characterized as the turret of the Civil War
battleship Monitor (the original ―turret‖ still tops the State House).
The defenders of the architecture of the Capitol quickly formed battle lines and the war was
on. They boasted that a Boston architect on a tour of the West had stopped in Columbus and
called the building one of the finest in the United States.
The question of a dome on the State House has persisted to the present day. Several years ago
a freshman legislator became obsessed with the need for such an addition to the top of the
building. Seeking publicity for his proposal, he approached one of the State House newspaper
correspondents, who listened attentively and then wrote in one of his dispatches that, ―the State
House is not the only thing in Columbus which needs a new dome.‖
Following the Great Dome Debate the recommendation of Judge Gilmore‘s Committee for
improved Supreme Court and library facilities carried unanimously. The long wait for the
Department of Justice building then began. When the project finally materialized many years
later it was christened with the inglorious name of the ―Judicial Annex.‖
The subject of codification of the civil law was raised by the Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee. In its report, presented by Judge H. Elliott of Dayton, the history of
legal codes was traced from the earliest days of the Roman Empire. Apparently, not all members
of the Committee believed that codification of Ohio‘s civil law was desirable—they stated their
position vociferously and at such length that Judge Gilmore offered a motion to postpone
consideration for one year. That, too, sparked a lengthy debate, and was defeated. After a recess
for the night, the report of the Committee favoring codification was adopted.
The election of officers was the next order of business. Apparently, Judge Gilmore made no
enemies with his effort to postpone action on codification, for his peers elected him to the
Presidency of the Association. J. T. Holmes was chosen as Secretary and Telford Groesbeck was
elected Treasurer.
With the election out of the way, the Convention took up the question of judicial salaries. C.
A. Norris of Marion offered a resolution that salaries be increased to provide $4,000 per year for
the Common Pleas Court, $6,000 for the Circuit Court and $10,000 for the Supreme Court.
Judge Elliott, Chairman of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee announced
that his Committee believed that it would be a vain thing to ask the legislature for such large
increases. He then suggested salaries of $3,000 for common pleas court judges and $5,000 for
Supreme Court judges. With reference to the Circuit Court he said, ―Those judges should live on
their present salaries till we see how they get along.‖
A motion to recommend a raise in the salary of the Attorney General to $4,000 per year lost.
A substitute motion was offered, calling for a $3,000 compensation for the State‘s chief legal
officer, and during the discussion it was brought out that he was then paid $1,500 per year.
Colonel M. P. Nolan of Dayton raised an interesting point when he inquired about the perquisites
of the office. He called the attention of the delegates to the fact that the United States District
Attorney collected a fee of $20 for docketing a case and $30 if he secured a conviction. General
Durbin Ward stated that the U.S. District Attorney‘s salary was $200 per year plus fees of not
over $6,000. The inquiry of Colonel Nolan proved pertinent, for it brought out the fact that the
state Attorney General collected fees also, but the limit was a total of $500. With that
information in hand, the delegates voted to recommend a salary of $3,000 for the Attorney
General, plus increases to $3,000 and $5,000 for the judges of the common pleas and Supreme
Courts, respectively.
The sixth annual Meeting closed with a boost to the feminist cause. Judge Gilmore offered a
resolution calling for an amendment to the laws of Ohio to provide that married women should
have all of the rights and liabilities of unmarried women in reference to their contracts and their
real property and personal property. The matter was referred to the Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee in accordance with the Judge‘s request.
***
The 7th annual Session of the Ohio State Bar Association met in the Clark County Court
House in Springfield, on December 28, 1886. The President, William J. Gilmore of Columbus,
opened the meeting and delivered the annual address.
Perhaps inspired by a life-size painting of Colonel George Rogers Clark, which adorned the
north wall of the courtroom where he spoke, President Gilmore launched into a recitation of the
history of Ohio from the time of the earliest appearance of Europeans in the territory which now
embraces the state. He alluded to Clark, for whom the county was named, and states: ―It was to
his efforts and services, more than to those of any other man, that the Mississippi River, rather
than the Allegheny Mountains, was made the western boundary of the territory ceded by Great
Britain to the States, on her acknowledgement of their independence.‖
Gilmore‘s scholarly dissertation is replete with interesting facts and references to the laws and
customs of the times. Some examples of the statutes enacted by the governor and two judges
who ruled the Northwest Territory would be a little disturbing today. A person who failed to pay
his assessment for the support of the county was subject to imprisonment. An unmarried debtor
was required to render personal service to his creditor for seven years, but a married debtor
needed to serve only five years. All males sixteen years of age and older were required to be
armed with a musket and bayonet, or a rifle and necessary ammunition, and to march in ranks at
ten o‘clock each Sunday morning at a convenient place next to the places of worship. Treason,
arson and murder resulted in the death penalty. The whipping post and the stocks were used for
lesser crimes. Lawyers‘ fees were fixed by law—arguing a case in the quarter sessions was worth
one dollar, and the fee was doubled for an appearance in the Supreme Court.
Leaving history, President Gilmore proceeded to a discussion of the problems of the court
system. The Association-sponsored amendment of the judicial article of the Constitution had
enabled the common pleas judges to dispose of the business in those courts promptly and
expeditiously. Similarly, the circuit courts, which had replaced the old district courts, were
handling appeals with dispatch. The result was that litigants, in search of delay, were flooding
the Supreme Court with appeals, many of which were spurious. He reviewed various plans but
rejected them by saying, ―It is better to bear the ills we have, than to fly to others we know not
of.‖ He then pointed out that most of the cases pending in the Supreme Court involved statutory
construction. He contended that not only was the quantity of laws enacted excessive, but the
quality was poor and this, according to Gilmore, showed the need for legislative reform. He
stated that there was only one way to accomplish it and that was by elevating the standards of
qualification required of our legislators.
The Treasurer‘s report indicated that the fledgling organization was facing fiscal problems.
Although the treasury had contained $260.15 at the beginning of the year and that figure had
increased to $317.35 by year‘s end, Treasurer Telford Groesbeck of Cincinnati announced that
118 members had paid their initiation fee but then had paid no dues whatsoever (dues were still
only $2 per year). Later in the meeting, the Association‘s Constitution was amended to provide
that members who were delinquent in their dues for one year would be dropped from the rolls.
While some lawyers may have been without funds with which to pay dues they were not
without a sense of humor, as witness the report of Judge Judson Harmon for the Legal Education
Committee. He stated, ―I believe I am the chairman of that committee; it is a Standing
Committee, that is, it never sits, at least it has not for two years; I am not certain whether I am
the chairman or not; it has nothing to report, and I ask that leave be granted to ascertain whether
it is in existence or not, and who is the chairman.‖ Harmon‘s request was ruled out of order, and
his statement was treated as a report and adopted by the convention.
The death of General Durbin Ward was reported. He had been Chairman of the Select
Committee Upon Revision of Election Laws. He had labored long and hard in that capacity and
at considerable cost, apparently, to his practice. One of his committee members moved that the
members of the Select Committee be paid their expenses for attending the meetings and that
they, in turn, pay the amount so received to General Ward‘s widow, she having been left in dire
financial straits. Action was deferred until later in the meeting, when the motion was withdrawn,
and new one authorizing the payment of $100 to Mrs. Ward, out of appreciation for the services
rendered to the Association by her husband, was made and unanimously adopted.
The convention then considered a number of recommendations for presentation to the
legislature. One called for a codification of the laws. After extended and sometimes acrimonious
argument, it was postponed. Another, which was adopted, recommended that the Judges of the
Supreme Court be increased to ten and be divided into two divisions.
The report of the meeting showed that the Association boasted 543 members, of whom 30
were designated ex-officio by virtue of being judges or other elected officials. A page of the
report was reserved for necrology. It included some important names in Ohio judicial and
political annals, among whom were: Thomas W. Bartley, the only man in the history of Ohio to
succeed his son as Governor; Judge Luther Day, one of the founders of the Association; and
Judge Joseph R. Swan and Judge John W. Okey, both of whom had served on the Ohio Supreme
Court.
***
The 8th Annual Meeting of The Ohio State Bar Association convened December 28, 1887 in
Toledo.
President John A. McMahon of Dayton said that the purpose of his address would be to
challenge the profession to improve itself, saying, ―It would sometimes appear as if the brains
and energy of our order had become the servants of monopoly and oppression.‖ McMahon
blamed the system rather than the profession for the situation, and said that the remedy was in
the hands of the courts and the bar of the state who could make the laws of the state, both written
and unwritten, more clear and understandable. He urged competition for judicial positions from
the ablest lawyers by offering salaries that would bring to state service energies and abilities that
were otherwise surrendered to corporations and other clients.
An important means to improve the profession advocated by President McMahon was to
require a more thorough education for the bar. He also proposed a probationary period for all
applicants, as well as inquiries to ascertain their moral and intellectual standards. Finally, he said,
the entrance examination should be made more difficult. He also called upon the lawyers to
forego the use of technical weapons and try their cases strictly on the merits.
How would all of these changes be accomplished? McMahon answered the question by
stating, ―By general agitation, attention is attracted, and, while correction may not come this year
or next, it will certainly come in the near future, if continuous honest effort is made.‖
President McMahon sounded the first call in Ohio for compulsory membership in the
Association. He argued that representative membership would give the Association legitimacy
and power to induce change and upgrade the profession‘s standards. It would then be in a
position to lay down general rules for guidance in relation to society, the courts, clients, and
other lawyers.
McMahon closed his remarks by stating, ―Gentlemen, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that
public faith in the profession has been considerably shaken, even in intelligent circles. We must
re-establish public confidence, but we will need the help of the whole bar of the state in this good
work.‖ If McMahon‘s speech seemed acerbic at times, it should be remembered that he was once
the partner of Clement L. Vallandigham, the onetime Congressman whose Copperhead
sympathies and heated speeches during the Civil War led to his arrest and imprisonment by
military authorities. Vallandigham was freed by Abraham Lincoln and exiled to the Confederacy,
thus effectively neutralizing him as an anti-union agitator.
The first item of business to come before the convention involved a question of law that was
plaguing Ohio lawyers. At the time there was increasing growth in number of large corporations,
many of which did business in several states. Under the law as it then stood, if a foreign
corporation did business in Ohio and were sued in the local courts, it was entitled to have the
matter transferred to the federal court and invariably did so. This created substantial
inconvenience and added legal expense for Ohio litigants. The Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee considered the matter and concluded that no state legislation could alleviate
this situation. It therefore recommended that the Association petition the Congress to amend the
Judiciary Act to prevent foreign corporations from using this device.
The problem of the selection of jurors claimed the attention of the assembled lawyers. A
proposal was offered to create a jury commission composed of two members chosen by the
common pleas court in each county. The proposal also called for the elimination of the rule
exempting members of the militia from jury duty. The usual method for selecting jurors in Ohio
was for the township trustees to choose from the electors the best persons available and submit a
list of them to the court. In recent years special acts had been adopted providing for jury
commissioners in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton and Lucas Counties. Debate over the measure
was spirited. Some rural members expressed satisfaction with the existing system, while others
charged that it gave rise to political favoritism. Judge H. Elliott of Dayton said that he had heard
loud complaints from the counties where the jury commissioner system was in effect. He said
that the situation became so intolerable in Cincinnati that the court house was burned. This
prompted Judge Dayton a Doyle of Akron to remark, ―We wish that somebody would burn it;
that is what we want.‖ He did not specify which courthouse he had in mind. The whole matter
ended with its referral back to the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee.
The banquet was notable feature of the 1887 Convention and, it may be added, it took a
rugged man to survive it. In lieu of a guest speaker, the program included a series of toasts, six in
all, and after each toast was drunk, a speaker responded. One greeting was to the Ohio State Bar
Association and Judge E. P. Green of Akron responded. Women had been invited to attend, and
Judge Green made note of that fact and then stated, ―… you have exchanged the poison that has
been a disgrace to this Bar Association at several times—wine—because some of us hasn‘t the
moral stamina to stand up after we had been drinking awhile, and in its place you have
introduced women. A better change could not have been made.‖ He did not mention song.
Judge Green‘s response to the toast must be impressed not only the women, but all of the
others present, for he was unanimously elected to the Presidency of the Association, the first
Akron lawyer to be so honored.
The End of The First Decade
The Ohio State Bar Association sought a new locale for its Ninth Annual Meeting. The
choice, Put-in-Bay, was clearly propitious for it was to be the site of the bar convention for the
next twenty-one years.
The tiny island, in the western reaches of Lake Erie, occupies a unique place in Ohio history.
Here, in early September of 1813, Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry marshaled his fleet for battle
with the British. In the harbor of Put-in-Bay is the Island of Gibraltar, which was owned by
Ohio-born Jay Cooke, the financier of the Civil War. Here, Cooke built a summer residence.
While the home was under construction, a Confederate gunboat plying Lake Erie halted a ship
carrying supplies to the job and confiscated them. President Rutherford B. Hayes purchased
Mouse Island, a three-acre dot in the Lake adjoining Gibraltar Island, and built a summer cottage
on it. Jay Cooke was the moving force behind the construction of the 135-foot-high monument to
Commodore Perry at Put-in-Bay.
It was doubly fitting that the first Ohio State Bar Association convention on the historic island
should concern itself with history. The year 1888 marked the one-hundredth anniversary of the
establishment of civil government in the Northwest Territory. The Executive Committee had
scheduled a discussion of lawyer participation in the Ohio Centennial Celebration to be held in
Columbus in September.
The convention orators concentrated on history. Some of it was of recent vintage. Judge John
A. Shauck spoke on the life of the late General Durbin Ward, a charter member of the
Association and its president in 1884. Judge M. Stuart of Ravenna discussed the life and times of
Judge Rufus Paine Spalding, whose career spanned the greater part of the nineteenth century.
Stuart pointed out that the early part of the century produced some of the greatest men in the
history of the Republic. Among them were Webster, Clay, Seward, Lincoln, Douglas, Marshall,
Taney and Chase, and all of them were Spalding‘s compeers and acquaintances.
The judge related an anecdote concerning Spalding‘s practice and how it affected the history
of the nation. Spalding won an admiralty case, but it was overturned on appeal by Judge John
McLean who entered final judgment for Spalding‘s opponent. Spalding was furious, but he had
an opportunity to even the score when the fledgling Republican Party, composed mainly of
Whigs and Free Soilers, met in Philadelphia to nominate its first presidential candidate. General
John C. Fremont was the choice of the Free Soilers, while Judge McLean was the favorite of the
old Whigs. Pennsylvania was a key state in the convention and in the general election. Judge
Spalding was the chairman of the Ohio delegation. Representatives of a powerful Pennsylvania
group of conservative Whigs came to Spalding‘s room and told him that if McLean was the
nominee they would deliver 15,000 votes, but if the prize went to Fremont, their bloc would
either stay at home or vote for Buchanan. When the balloting was about to start, Spalding arose
and withdrew McLean‘s name. The delegates, knowing that Spalding was the Ohio chairman,
believed that he had authority, and they switched to Fremont. The fact was that he acted strictly
on his own, but it was too late for the McLean forces to rally and Fremont was nominated. The
disgruntled Pennsylvanians carried out their threat, and Buchanan carried their state and won the
election by a small margin. Later, McLean said that but for Spalding he would have been elected
and pursued a conservative course toward the South, and accordingly there would have been no
secession. ―Therefore,‖ said McLean, ―Spalding was indirectly responsible for the approaching
dissolution of the Union and prospective war.‖
The business sessions of the convention produced some controversy. Following the founding
of the American Bar Association in 1878, a new group, known as the National Bar Association,
was organized in May of 1888. It scheduled its first convention in Cleveland. The resolution to
appoint delegates to represent the Ohio State Bar Association at the meeting sparked a lively
debate. Judge H. Elliott of Dayton informed the group that the fundamental purpose of the new
association was to secure the passage of uniform state laws in areas of general concern. Two
Ohio lawyers, John H. Doyle of Toledo and Lewis P. Cunckle of Dayton, were elected as
officers of the National Bar Association. The constitution of the new group contained a recitation
of salutary goals relative to the administration of justice and kindred matters, and provided that
the association would be purely representative in membership and would be composed only of
delegates from various state and local bar association. The question which perplexed the
assembled lawyers was whether the new organization was a rival of the already well-established
American Bar Association. It was pointed out that the president of the new group was an active
members of the American Bar Association and that the two groups had expressed not antagonism
toward each other. Upon those representations, the Ohio State Bar Association appointed twentyone of its members to be delegates to the Cleveland Convention of the National Bar Association.
The president of the state bar, E. P. Green of Akron, discussed the unfavorable attitude of the
public toward the bar in general and bar associations in particular. The opinion was abroad that
bar associations were organized by the lawyers to promote their own interests at the expense of
the public. Green then took, one by one, the objects and purposes of the Ohio State Bar
Association, as set forth in its constitution, and showed clearly and irrefutably how the
accomplishment of those objects and purposes by the Association redounded to the benefit of the
state and its citizens.
President Green suggested several matters for the consideration of the assembled lawyers. The
first concerned the perennial question of the deplorable condition of the Supreme Court rooms.
He said that there was but one consultation room which had to be shared by all the judges. That
room was about the size of a bedroom in a modern home, according to Green. One end of the
long corridor was partitioned off for the clerk‘s office, and it resembled a hen house. Along both
walls of the corridor, and at the rear of the Supreme Court hearing room, law books were
carelessly stacked for want of any place else to put them. The President reiterated the
recommendation that a Department of Justice be established in a separate building and that it
should house the Supreme Court, the Law Library and the Attorney General‘s office. This idea
came to fruition when the Judicial Annex to the State House was built twenty-five years later.
Another constructive proposal made by President Green was for the appointment of a
statutory draftsman. His function would be to draft bills for the legislature. Under Green‘s plan,
no bill could become law until it has been examined by the draftsman and its phraseology
approved by him. Unfortunately this, too, was an idea whose time had not yet come. It was many
years before the Legislative Service Commission and Legislative Reference Bureau were
established to aid in drafting bills.
Finally, the president urged the membership to study thoroughly the subject of codification of
the law. If the members would investigate the advantages of codification and work to secure
passage of bills to accomplish it, the public generally would benefit. Here would be clear and
convincing proof that reform of the law, advocated by lawyers, would be in the public interest
and not just a selfish professional goal.
The idea of a lawyers‘ day at the Ohio Centennial Celebration had been proposed at the
Springfield convention of 1886 and the Toledo convention of 1887. However, the committee
appointed to develop the project had never met. Now, in July of 1888, the Centennial was about
to be celebrated. The proximity of the event prodded the lawyers to action. Allen C. Thurman
was appointed Chairman of the Lawyers‘ Day observance at the Ohio Centennial, to be held in
Columbus on September 19, 1888. Music and speeches, both prepared and extemporaneous,
filled the program. The scheduled addresses were delivered by W. J. Gilmore of Columbus,
Judge Joseph Cox of Cincinnati, M. C. Read of Hudson and Andrew Squire of Cleveland.
It was fitting that M. D. Follett, a lawyer from Marietta, the cradle of the Northwest Territory,
should have taken the leadership in organizing the Lawyers‘ Day. He opened the festivities with
a brief welcome and a capsule summary of the proceedings by which the first courts were
established in the ―Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio‖ as the land was
described in the ordinance of 1787. Follett had invited two famous residents of the Northwest
Territory to attend the celebration. They were Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller of the U.S.
Supreme Court and Benjamin Harrison, the future president of the United States. Both
respectfully declined. When the celebration was about to close, those present extended a vote of
thanks to Judge Follett for being the only member of the Centennial Committee who did any
work. He graciously gave credit to the lawyers of Franklin County for their part in making the
event a success. W. J. Gilmore than led the group in singing ―Auld Lang Syne‖ and the festivities
came to an end.
***
J. J. Moore of Ottawa was the Association President in 1889, and like his predecessors he
expressed concern about the presence in the profession of what he called the scribes, pharisees
and hypocrites. ―We can‖, said Moore, ―elevate the standard of the lawyers by being more severe
in our methods.‖ Individual members should take firm steps to purge the profession, and he
urged the formation and strengthening of local bar associations for the purpose of accomplishing
this worthy goal.
Moore, even at that early date in the Association‘s history, decried the lack of interest of a
majority of lawyers in the work of the state bar. He quoted from the speech of one of his
predecessors, John A. McMahon of Dayton, in which it was stated that in spite of many appeals
to the bar of Ohio and the holding of numerous meetings around the state, that only one in every
ten lawyers had joined and that many counties and county seats were not represented in the
membership. That there was much missionary work to do not only at the state level, but also at
the local level was indicated by the fact that in all eighty-eight counties of Ohio only nineteen
local bar associations were in active operation.
The subject of delays in the Supreme Court was, said President Moore, one of the most
important matters for consideration by the Ohio State Bar Association. He called for either
enlargement of the Court or a limitation upon its jurisdiction, and predicted that in view of
previous legislative success on the part of the Association, favorable results might be achieved.
The president closed his address with a statement which expresses at once a fact and a
challenge to all members of the bar. He said, ―The architects of civil government must
necessarily be lawyers. Untrained hands can no more draw constitutions, statutes and ordinances,
then build ships or erect temples. It is the work of the law in the higher walks of the profession to
discover, invest, fortify, defend and vindicate the best means of securing life, liberty and
happiness.‖
The mundane housekeeping chores of the Tenth Annual Meeting produced some interesting
results. The Secretary, Col. J. T. Holmes of Columbus, made a practical and prophetic statement
in his annual report: ―Railroads and transportation must always figure more or less in the success
or failure of meetings of this Association until navigation of the upper air becomes one of the
common counts.‖ Since local committees had failed to procure discounts on railroad fares,
Holmes proposed that a special committee of the bar association be appointed whose duty it
would be at least six weeks prior to the annual meeting to negotiate for reduced fares for
transportation to and from the convention and that the rates be published in the advance notices
and programs. The proposal was accepted and incorporated into the by-laws.
William E. Talcott of Cleveland, reporting for the Membership Committee, disclosed that
eighty-nine new names had been added to the roster. The list included: Alexander Hadden, who
became Probate Judge of Cuyahoga County; John L. Zimmerman and William W. Keifer, both
of whose families were prominent in Clark County legal and political circles; and, for the first
time in the annals of the Association, two members of the fair sex, Mrs. Nettie C. Lutes and Miss
Florence Cronise, both of Tiffin.
Supplementing the report of the Membership Committee, Judge W. A. Gilmore pointed out
that sixteen of the new members came from Darke County. This, he said, was because these new
members had originally banded together to form a county bar association. Their first project had
been to establish a law library. With the co-operation of the County Commissioners, who
provided space and employed a librarian, these dedicated lawyers pooled their own private
libraries and advanced funds to purchase additional books. They could then point with pride to
the fact that their library included the leading texts and the complete reports from twenty-eight
states.
Although the convention met in a summer resort hotel, the only evidence of organized social
activity appearing in the program was a three-hour excursion on Lake Erie aboard the steamer
Gazelle. To make up for this apparent deficiency, the Cleveland Bar Association extended a
belated invitation to the assembled delegates to come to Cleveland on July 20th and then entrain
to Cottage Grove Lake in Summit County for a picnic at a cost of $1 for rail fare and 50 cents
per plate for dinner.
The convention closed with a flurry of activity, including designation of Put-in-Bay as the site
of the next annual meeting, appointment of delegates to both the National Bar Association and
American Bar Association, and the singing of Auld Lang Syne. The long service of Col. J. T.
Holmes, the Secretary since the founding of the Association, was rewarded with his elevation to
the presidency.
CHAPTER THREE
THE ‘NINETIES
“The Bar of Ohio is to be congratulated upon the high rank it has attained in its
profession, and the high position it has achieved in every relation in life … This
Association—your Association—has been of great value to the Legislature of the
State. Its careful recommendations, when adopted, have proved beneficial. It is a
mighty force in securing wholesome and conservative legislation, and I trust the
good work which it has commenced in this direction will be continued.”
Governor William McKinley
***
The Growing Prestige of the Association
By 1890 The Ohio State Bar Association was firmly committed to Put-in-Bay as the perennial
site for its Annual Meeting. Thus it was that President J. T. Holmes of Columbus welcomed the
visiting lawyers to the Beebe House on July 16th. He read a dispatch from Governor James E.
Campbell in which the Governor extended greetings and expressed his regret at being unable to
attend.
The Secretary, William E. Talcott, reported that there were now twenty-five local bar
associations in Ohio. This represented an increase of seven new organizations in two years time.
L. H. Pike of Toledo, Treasurer of the Association, had several recommendations for the
assembled barristers. First, he had learned to his chagrin that many lawyers were elected to
membership without paying the $2 admission fee. It then became his duty to try to collect the
money from them, and he was not enjoying much success. Pike advocated the ago old principle
of the market place, namely ―cash on the barrelhead.‖ Pike‘s second suggestion concerned the
State Bar‘s membership in the National Bar Association. The Ohio State Bar Association had
certified forty-two delegates as its representatives to the new national organization. This cost the
State Bar $105, which was 20% of its annual income. No other state or local bar groups paid
anywhere near that amount. The Treasurer urged that Ohio withdraw from the National Bar
Association. After some discussion, the matter was referred to a committee consisting of General
J. C. Lee of Toledo, L. M. Jewett of Athens, E. H. Fitch of Jefferson, J. F. Burket of Findlay, and
Judge Pike.
The recurrent problem of justice delayed was the theme of the presidential address. Colonel
Holmes said, ―The central, all important desideratum of the Association‘s objectives is speedy
justice …. There is no other kind. Justice that is not speedy is injustice …. The theory of speedy
justice is beautiful; the practice is now a dismal failure on State and Federal jurisdictions.‖ To
seek a solution to the problem the President recommended that ten members of the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee be specially empowered to invite into the councils
of the Committee a leading and effective member of the bar from each judicial district,
regardless of whether that person was a member of The Ohio State Bar Association. Holmes
advocated that the group should prepare a plan of action to remedy the delay of justice which the
Association would start on its way with a concerted push for appropriate legislation. Holmes
urged that state bar funds be used to finance the work of the committee. As subjects for
consideration by the select committee, Holmes suggested an increase in the number of judges, an
increase in judicial salaries, limitations on the right to appeal or prosecute error proceedings, and
a limitation on the number and character of causes triable by a jury.
At the conclusion of the President‘s address, a series of papers were read by prominent
members of the Ohio bar. The subjects of these papers strike a familiar note and cause one to
wonder whether the problems connected with the administration of justice will ever be solved.
Two of the papers dealt with the jury system and what reforms were necessary to improve it.
General J. C. Lee discussed legal ethics, a subject which remains of grave concern at the present
time.
Today, the public and the legal profession worry over the ever-increasing number of divorce
cases. We often think of it as a twentieth century phenomenon, brought on by the fast pace of life
in the modern world, but this is not so. The 11th Annual Meeting in 1890 included a discussion
of the subject of divorce. A resolution was presented and adopted calling for the appointment of
a committee of five to study and prepare a full report on the matter of divorce and submit it to the
next Convention.
The principal speaker of the meeting was John F. Dillon of New York whose address was
entitled ―Bentham—His School of Jurisprudence.‖ Jeremy Bentham was the English reformer
whose life spanned the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. His ideas, considered
radical at the time, included universal suffrage, annual sessions of Parliament, voting by ballot,
and paid representatives. His overriding concern was the promotion of the general welfare,
which he expressed in the phrase ―the greatest happiness for the greatest number.‖
The Executive Committee provided a free banquet for the conventioneers. It was held at 10
P.M. in the Beebe House. What effect that late hour had on the attendance the following day is
not indicated in the record of the proceedings.
A custom which started early and prevailed well into the twentieth century was the reading of
biographical sketches of important members who had died during the preceding year. Today it
would be considered morbid, but for the present day reader it also provides many interesting
items of Ohio history.
One of those eulogized at the 11th Annual Meeting was Nicholas Longworth of Cincinnati,
who died in January, 1890. The paper was prepared and read by Judge Joseph Cox of that city.
Of Longworth, Cox said, ―His qualifications as an advocate were of the first character—brilliant,
able, argumentative …‖ A member of a prominent Cincinnati family, he served on the Common
Pleas Court and the Ohio Supreme Court, but resigned the bench in 1883 to assume the
management of his family‘s vast real estate holdings. These real estate holdings had been
acquired by Longworth‘s father, also named Nicholas, who studied law in the office of Judge
Jacob Burnet, one of Cincinnati‘s most prominent lawyers in the early nineteenth century. When
the elder Longworth was admitted to the bar, his first case was the defense of an accused horse
thief. He won the case, and received as a fee two copper stills which he promptly traded for
thirty-three acres of supposedly worthless land. The land turned out to be anything but worthless,
for its value increased until eventually it was worth two million dollars. The elder Longworth
then abandoned the law and entered the real estate business where he became a multi-millionaire.
His grandson, the third Nicholas Longworth, also a lawyer, embarked early upon a political
career which culminated in his election as Speaker of the House of Representatives in
Washington. Soon after he entered the Congress, he met and married Alice Roosevelt in a White
House wedding in 1906. Truly the Longworths were one of Ohio‘s most remarkable families.
***
When President Henderson Elliott of Dayton addressed the 12th Annual Meeting at Put-inBay, he noted that Ohio was emerging from a predominately rural economy and entering upon an
era when manufacturing would be paramount. Elliott picked up the theme of his predecessor,
Colonel J. T. Holmes, and renewed the demand for court reform.
Calling attention to the fact that the work of the Supreme Court was increasing and that the
number of cases being filed was mounting rapidly, Elliott said, ―This is to be expected, inasmuch
as the population, wealth and material interests of the State were increasing. Great progress is
being made in the building of railroads, in the creation of all manner of corporations and in the
erection of great manufacturing establishments involving large investments of capital.‖ The
President pointed out that the phenomenal industrial growth required the enactment of a
multitude of new laws. These laws had to be tested in the courts, and this, along with the normal
amount of litigation attendant upon the growth of the population, served to clog the dockets of
the trial courts, the circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Beyond these causes, however, Elliott
forthrightly said that the overriding cause of delay was an inadequate number of judges in certain
localities and the lack of promptness, dispatch and vigor in many instances.
To prove his point about the clogged docket, President Elliott reported that on January 1,
1891, there were 971 cases pending in the Supreme Court as against 918 one year earlier. Elliott
called upon the lawyers to devise a plan to keep cases out of the Supreme Court. He suggested
that the circuit courts should not be mere halfway points on the road to the Supreme Court. The
judgment in an ordinary case which involved no constitutional or important public question, and
which had been unanimously affirmed by the circuit court should be final and not subject to
review by the Supreme Court, according to Elliott.
The Convention then turned its attention to other matters. The deplorable condition of real
estate records in some counties prompted a discussion of the method in use in Canada known as
the ―Australian‖ or ―Torrens‖ system. This, however, was a change for which Ohio lawyers were
not yet ready.
A bill was pending in the Legislature to permit verdicts in civil cases upon concurrence of
three-fourths of the members of the jury. This proposal elicited the support of the assembled
barristers.
One action by the Association in 1890 bore fruit. The Convention had adopted a resolution
urging the Congress to create an intermediate federal court. A law establishing such a court was
passed and a Circuit Court of Appeals was organized at Cincinnati pursuant to that law. The first
session was scheduled for October, 1891.
The election of officers provided a surprise. Samuel F. Hunt was elected President. The
Nominating Committee presented the name of George R. Davis for Secretary, but he was absent.
In his stead, Frederick C. Bryan of Akron was chosen. L. H. Pike of Toledo was re-elected as
Treasurer.
***
In conformity to the wishes of the membership, the Ohio State Bar Association held its 13th
Annual Meeting at Put-in-Bay where, ―luxuriant foliage and refreshing breezes invite from the
strife of protracted and vexatious litigation …‖ The barristers gathered at Hotel Victory on July
13, 1892, and promptly extended a vote of thanks to the Hotel in recognition of having been
granted the use of the large meeting room free of charge.
The sessions opened, after a short delay, with an address of welcome by a distinguished
Ohioan and a member of the Association since its first year, Governor William McKinley. The
delay was occasioned by story weather on the lake—the Governor traveled to the meeting on the
private yacht of Marcus Alonzo Hanna, the wealthy Cleveland industrialist and political leader.
Today‘s welcoming greetings are not noted for their solemnity and are generally confined to a
few pleasantries. Not so with McKinley‘s remarks. With his usual sincerity and clarity of
expression, the governor in one short paragraph cogently described the importance of the
profession and the obligation of those who practice it. His words should be required reading for
every law student and could be profitably re-read regularly thereafter.
―The profession,‖ McKinley stated ―is essential to civilization. It touches every relation of
life. While it is a single calling, it must necessarily compass all callings. Its grasp must be the
most comprehensive. Its counsel is sought in every enterprise and activity of the people and in
every undertaking. The lawyer holds the secrets of his clients. He holds in his hands after the
reputations of families and the credit of great business enterprises. A careless word, a piece of
injudicious advice of his, would blast the one and destroy the other. He guards the interests of the
most helpless and unfortunate of our population as well as the great concerns of the richest and
most powerful. The fidelity with which he guards all these sacred interests is a matter of just
pride to every lawyer. Perfection is nowhere to be found; but there is no profession where honor
and integrity are at a higher premium than in the profession of the law.‖
The presidential address was given by Samuel H. Hunt of Cincinnati. His remarks clearly
indicate that Hunt was a man of complete candor. His opening paragraphs referred to the Golden
Rule and contained pleas for brotherhood and tolerance. Hunt emphasized his point by stating,
―There is nothing more universal than human ignorance, there should be nothing more universal
than human charity.‖
President Hunt launched into a comprehensive and scholarly dissertation which covered a
description of the newly created federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the changes in the Ohio
Supreme Court (which included the addition of one judge and the separation of the Court into
two divisions), and a review of the enactments of the General Assembly.
Hunt‘s summary indicated that the 70th General Assembly had been busy and productive.
Jurors‘ fees in the justice of the peace courts were jumped from fifty cents to seventy-five cents
per day. Barbering on Sunday was made a misdemeanor, as was the act of an employer in
preventing his employee from joining a labor union. The salary of judges in Cuyahoga County
was increased from $4,000 to $5,000 per year. The work day on railroads was reduced to ten
hours. Provision was made for the establishment of police courts in certain classes of cities.
Finally, a bill long espoused by the Bar Association, providing for the exclusive settlement of
judicial election contests, was passed. Under it the circuit court would decide contests in the
common pleas and superior courts and the Supreme Court would decide those in the circuit
court. The Supreme Court was given jurisdiction to determine contests for seats in its own court,
but an incumbent judge involved in a contest could not participate in any way in the
determination of his cause.
The report of the Committee on Admissions is of particular interest. It contains names of men
whose names are carried by present day Ohio lawyers. Among them were Judge Thomas
Cherrington of Ironton, W. R. Pomerene of Coshocton, John E. Betts of Findlay, John F.
McCrystal of Sandusky, Howard Hollister of Cincinnati and J. C. Heinlein of Bridgeport.
Another man admitted that day was Simeon D. Johnson of Cincinnati who, twenty years later,
would be the President of the Association.
The report of the Secretary, Frederick C. Bryan, contained a suggestion which eventually
blossomed into a reality far beyond that individual‘s fondest dream. After discussing the
publication and distribution of the annual reports of the Association to the membership and to the
state, university and public libraries, Bryan suggested that Ohio should take a leaf from New
York‘s book. He stated that the bar association there had the use of a room in the capitol at
Albany, were its reports and those of other state bar associations were kept and where portraits of
distinguished lawyers lined the walls. ―Why‖, said Bryan, ―should not the reports of the Ohio
State Bar Association be placed in the State Law Library in Columbus?‖
The Treasurer‘s report contained some interesting financial details. The Buckeye barristers
apparently still were allergic to dues, although the rate was only $2 per year. The persistence of
the treasurer in pursuing delinquent members produced $464 on 1891 dues and $141 on 1890
and prior years. Treasurer L. H. Pike, intending to decline the honor and burden of re-election,
proposed the hiring of an assistant to the new treasurer. He stated that it was impossible for a
busy lawyer to do efficient work, and that strict enforcement of the suspension rule for non-
payment would reduce the roster of members by 25%. Pike was persuasive—his report was
approved and the Treasurer was authorized by the membership to hire an assistant at $75 per
year. As an afterthought, and as evidence of their appreciation of Pike‘s efforts, the members
voted unanimously to allow the Treasurer to retain $50 of the funds of the Association in his
hands for his personal use.
The federal bureaucracy is now, in the late twentieth century, concerning itself with real estate
titles and the costs and complications incident to obtaining proof of their validity. In 1891, this
subject was a matter of concern to the Ohio State Bar Association. The Judicial Administration
and Legal Reform Committee reported to the convention that year that it favored a new system
for preserving and proving real estate titles commonly known as the Australian System, but
could not make a definite or specific recommendation on it. The matter was referred back to the
Committee. After a year of study, the group reported to the 1892 convention that it favored the
system developed by Sir Robert R. Torrens which was introduced in the province of Manitoba in
1885. It was in effect in Australia, New Zealand and in various dependencies of the British
Empire. It then recommended that a bill be drafted for presentation to the Legislature. The report
was adopted and thus began the move which established the Torrens System in Ohio.
The 13th Annual meeting was honored not only by the presence of Governor McKinley, but
also by the attendance of two distinguished visitors, one from the neighboring state of Michigan,
Mr. Justice Henry B. Brown of the United States Supreme Court, and the other from
Connecticut, Professor Simeon E. Baldwin of Yale University Law School and the incumbent
president of the American Bar Association.
Mr. Justice Brown noted in his remarks that from the time of the appointment of John McLean
of Warren County in 1829 until death of Justice Stanley Matthews of Cincinnati in 1889, Ohio
had always had from one to three members on the supreme bench of the United States.
Contemporary lawyers were generally shocked by the comments of Chief Justice Warren Burger
concerning the competency of the trial bar, but note the words of Mr. Justice Brown in 1892:
―…I came down to Columbus to hold a short session of court for Judge Sage. When I appeared
upon the bench to hold the court, I found the members of the bar in the usual state of unreadiness
to try their cases.‖
The Justice must have brought his crystal ball to Put-in-Bay, or perhaps he had recently read
Das Kapital. In any event, he predicted that restraints would be imposed upon the transmission
of property by will. He said, ―If men are today worth $300,000,000, I see no reason why, in fifty
years from this time, we may not have men worth $1,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000. We may
not be able to put our finger upon anything in that connection and say that it is wrong; but I think
the time is coming when our Legislature may be obliged to take hold of it, and limit the amount
which a testator may bequeath to a single person.‖ Those must have been alarming words for
Governor McKinley‘s host and mentor if he stayed to hear them, or perhaps they were the
motivation which caused Marc Hanna to seek election to the U.S. Senate a few years later.
Professor Baldwin also looked to the future and uttered some prophecies. He said, ―Our
system of jurisprudence has been built up during an era of ever increasing power and
prosperity—the glad youth of a new day. It has served us well thus far. Will it be found equally
adapted to those other days which are sure to come, when a denser population will crown the
land; when immigration is discouraged or repelled; when there are no more virgin forests or
virgin fields; when, perhaps the growing duties of the General Government give it a still greater
weight, relatively to the States? So far as we can forecast this future, it may, I believe, be our
hope and our confidence that the forces of universal education and of universal suffrage,
bringing individual responsibility, will be found equal to the strain.‖
The report for 1892 contained a memorial which brought grief to the entire membership. One
of the founders of the Association and the unanimous choice for the first president, Rufus P.
Ranney, had died on December 6, 1891. The author of the memorial, Judge Samuel E.
Williamson of Cleveland, said that for many years Judge Ranney represented to Ohio lawyers all
that they admired and emulated. His first residence in the Western Reserve was a rude log cabin
in the virgin forest where bears and wolves ravaged his family‘s cattle. But, like others, he
persevered, gained an education, served his community, practiced his profession, attained
moderate wealth and lived to see the untamed wilderness of the Western Reserve emerge as the
industrial, financial and cultural center of Ohio.
***
The year 1893 was famous for the Great World‘s Fair at Chicago. Of that Exposition, Judge
John H. Doyle of Toledo, the President of the Association, said in his annual address, ―The
whole world has gathered its gems of agriculture, science, art, invention and all the forms of the
product of its genius and labor and deposited them in a great city of our land, which in age is but
an infant, but in power and greatness is the rival of the giant cities of the world.‖ He made no
mention of Little Egypt—the famous dancer whose abdominal gyrations at the Fair titillated the
male citizenry of the Gay Nineties.
The World‘s Fair did have a profound effect upon the Ohio State Bar Association‘s 14th
Annual Meeting. When General Asa W. Jones of Youngstown, the Chairman of the Executive
Committee, called the meeting to order in the Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay on July 19, he decried
the meager attendance and placed the blame directly upon the Chicago Fair, but he allowed that,
―if two or three are gathered together, they shall have a good time.‖ General Jones then called
upon the President to deliver his annual address.
President Doyle frankly stated that his speech would be critical in nature, not because he was
motivated by a spirit of evil, but because he believed that it was the duty of every lawyer to
speak and agitate against any hindrance to the proper administration of the law or disobedience
to its mandates. He pointed out the excessive amount of legislation and the disregard by the
General Assembly of the constitutional limitations upon its powers as being two principal
sources of concern to him, and the problems which, in his judgment, caused disrespect for the
law and the government.
Doyle noted that in 1891 the Legislature met for 60 days in regular session, and produced
enactments sufficient to cover 944 pages in the book of sessions laws. These pages contained
bills amending, repealing, supplementing, or referring to, no less than 441 sections of the statutes
of Ohio. A special session in that year produced five bills that were enacted into law, the last one
of which simply repealed a former law without any other provision. Doyle states, ―I do not run
much risk in expressing my opinions that this was the only valid law made at that session.‖
Doyle painstakingly enumerated the vast number of special interest laws which had been
passed, many of which involved the use of public funds for private purposes in violation of the
Constitution. As a remedy, Doyle called for the election of a fearless Attorney General who
would attack, by proper proceeding, every unconstitutional law. Such a man would serve notice
on the people of Ohio and their representatives that the Constitution of Ohio is greater than the
Legislature, and obedience to its mandates would be required from its members as well as the
private citizens.
He then threw down a challenge to the legal profession to aid in overcoming this evil
tendency. ―If the lawyers of the General Assembly, and those of this Association will bring to the
work of reformation of this evil their patriotism as citizens, their learning, and above all their
influence as exemplary members of this great profession, I believe in that will be found the most
effective reform of all.‖
The report of Frederick C. Bryan of Akron, Secretary of the Association, contained a number
of interesting items. On the subject of membership, Bryan said ―Cincinnati maintains her preeminence in this as in other things.‖ Toledo was only a short distance behind and Cleveland was
a poor third. Seven counties, namely Clermont, Brown, Adams, Fulton, Wayne, Tuscarawas,
Harrison and Medina, did not have a single lawyer on the rolls of the Association, the
membership of which not totaled 460. The Ohio State Bar Association was the fifth oldest (then
surviving) in the country, and second to New York in number of members. Only one state,
Pennsylvania, had more local bar associations than Ohio.
Bryan pointed out that the Association-backed proposal to add a judge to the Supreme Court
and to separate the Court into two divisions had run into an unexpected snag. After the adoption
of the amendment the only available room in the State House for the second branch of the Court
was being retained as a lounging room by a state official who had more influence with the
legislature than the Court.
Bryan‘s report contained an obscure but accurate prediction. He referred briefly to the activity
concerning the Torrens System of Land Registration both inside and outside of the Association.
He added, ―The system seems to be winning its way by pure merit, and though not yet adopted
by any American state, no note of opposition seems to be aroused where it has been discussed. It
is not to be believed, however, that men who have money largely invested in abstract or title
companies will sit idly by and without protest see a system adopted which will in time render
their investments valueless.‖
The convention of 1893 furnished clear and convincing evidence that the Ohio State Bar
Association was gaining in stature and importance in the state of Ohio. The Legislature had
adopted a joint resolution authorizing the appointment by the Governor of a Tax Commission of
four members. Judge A. C. Thompson, the chairman of the Commission, addressed the
convention and stated unequivocally that he was there to ask the Association to assist the
Commission in the performance of its duties. He asserted that the country was reaching a point in
taxation, and in levying and collecting of taxes, beyond which the people will refuse to go
(considering today‘s levels of taxation, the people apparently have more patience than he
thought). The burden of Judge Thompson‘s complaint was that the tax system in Ohio had grown
without any well-ordered planning, and needed a thorough and comprehensive overhaul.
The 14th Annual Meeting busied itself with many matters and debate occasionally became
acrimonious. One resolution suggested that the existing law relative to removal from the practice
of attorneys who were guilty of offenses involving moral turpitude was very crude and entirely
inadequate to purge the profession of the barnacles that had fastened themselves upon it. It
proposed that the subject be referred to the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee, with instructions to prepare a plan of procedure and such additional legislation as
might be necessary to secure the object desired. The resolution was adopted.
There was a lengthy debate on the matter of increasing the scholastic requirements for
admission to the bar from two to three years in law school. The motion was carried, and the
Committee on Legal Education was directed to take the matter to the legislature for appropriate
action.
The practice of reporting to the annual meeting the names of new members approved by the
Admissions Committee always revealed many we now know were destined for importance in
legal and political affairs in Ohio. As the ‗Nineties rolled on this phenomenon became
increasingly apparent. For example, James R. Garfield, a future member of the president‘s
cabinet and his brother, Harry R. Garfield, were now members. These two men where the sons of
the martyred President, James A. Garfield. Two other interesting additions to the membership
were announced by the Admissions Committee at the 1893 convention. The first was Judge John
E. Hanna of McConnelsville, who, in 1843, had been the judge of the Common Pleas Court of
Morgan County. Judge L. E. Pike took special note of Judge Hanna‘s election to membership
and pointed out that he was then about ninety years old. He hoped that such an expression of
interest in the state bar by a man of Judge Hanna‘s years and reputation would be an example to
some of the younger lawyers who had not yet seen fit to affiliate. The second addition was that
of General J. Warren Kiefer of Springfield, whose law practice spanned more than three-quarters
of a century in Clark County.
The mention of General Kiefer emphasizes the fact that a disproportionately large number of
the members of the Ohio State Bar Association had held high rank in the Union Army during the
Civil Way. Whether this is attributable to the fact that Edwin Stanton (Secretary of War in
Lincoln‘s Cabinet) and William Dennison (Ohio‘s war governor) were lawyers is not known, but
both of them did bring many Ohioans into the federal service. The list is far from complete, but
among the early leaders of the Ohio State Bar Association who were soldiers were General Jacob
D. Cox of Cincinnati, general Durbin Ward of Lebanon, General W. A. Jones of Youngstown,
General Thomas F. Wildes of Akron, General Ralph P. Buckland of Fremont, Colonel Llewellyn
Barbar of Columbus, Colonel J. T. Holmes of Columbus, Colonel Charles H. Grosvenor of
Athens, Major William McKinley, Jr. of Canton, and General E. B. Findley of Bucyrus.
The list of the standing and special committees tells something of the growth and scope of
activities of any organization and by this test the Ohio State Bar Association with 426 members
in 1893 was prospering. Article VI of the Constitution listed the standing committees and
provided that each of them should be composed of one member from each of Ohio‘s ten judicial
districts. In 1893, the standing committees and chairmen were:
Judicial Administration and Legal Reform, Charles Pratt of Toledo
Legal Education, E. B. King of Sandusky
Grievances, John R. Sayler of Cincinnati
Admissions and Elections, J. N. Hathaway of Chardon
Executive Committee, S. S. Wheeler of Lima
In addition to the standing committee, three special committees to deal with specific current
problems had been appointed by the president without indicating a chairman. These were: the
Committee on Railroads and Transportation; the Committee on Divorce; and the Committee on
New Rooms for the Supreme Court and the State Law Library.
The Labor Movement
The summer of 1894 saw a period of labor unrest in Ohio. A general strike had been called by
the United Mine Workers in the bituminous coal regions. Coal continued to be shipped by rail
from West Virginia through Ohio, and to halt this traffic the strikers tore up rails, burned bridges,
seized trains, and stoned the crews. Responding to appeals from the county sheriffs, Governor
McKinley acted quickly. He summoned John McBaide, boss of the United Mine Workers, and
told him, ―You have gone too far. If you don‘t stop it before evening, I will call out the entire
National Guard …‖ McKinley carried out his threat and dispatched troops immediately to the
trouble areas. Peace was restored by his prompt action.
Thus it was that, when S. S. Wheeler of Lima, Chairman of the Executive Committee, called
the 15th Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association to order at the Beebe House at Putin-Bay on July 18th, he had to announce that Governor William McKinley would not be able to
be present. The Governor had cancelled all appointments in order to give his full attention to the
problems at hand. Wheeler noted, however that there was a large representation of the bar of
Ohio in attendance and that an attractive program had been arranged. That program suffered
another blow, however, when the principal speaker for the meeting, the eminent authority on
constitutional law, J. Randolph Tucker of Lexington, Virginia, became ill and was unable to
attend.
Wheeler then introduced the President of the Association, S. R. Harris of Bucyrus. Noting that
the Association had taken no position on the subject to which he was about to address himself,
and identifying himself as neither unfamiliar with hard labor nor an admirer of George Pullman,
Harris delivered an oration that reflected a substantial segment of public opinion at the time but
would be startling today. His subject was labor unrest—‖I allude to the growing state of anarchy
to which our beloved Republic is rapidly drifting under the unchecked growth of communism,
which takes the specious form and name of so-called strikes.
―Thousands upon thousands of laborers have had ample employment with good living wages
on the railroads, in the mines and manufacturing establishments of our country. On the other
hand, there are triple the number of honest laborers in miscellaneous pursuits, uncertain of their
nature, liable to fluctuate in wages and of uncertain duration, such as the common day laborer.
The latter class would gladly change places for the same wages, but what state of things confront
them? They are met and repulsed by strikers who voluntarily go out themselves and refuse to
permit the other laborers to take their places.
Blaming this situation on seditious demagogues with political aspirations and a burning desire
for notoriety, who were using incendiary oratory to embitter labor against capital, Harris
continued his denunciation of the disrupters. ―The designing orator and demagogue who incites a
happy and contented class of well-paid laborers as well as the poor who are out of employment,
to mutiny against their employers and benefactors; who makes inflammatory speeches to
convince them that the rich have no other design than to crush the poor, and that the poor have
no other mission than to ruin the rich, deserves to be classed with the bloody anarchist and
should, like him, be stamped out by the government for its own protection.‖
As a solution to the problem, Harris suggested that both the state and federal constitutions
were broad enough to support appropriate legislation which would afford equal and exact
protection to the poor against the rich, protect the property of the rich against mob violence and,
of greatest importance, afford protection of one class of laborers against the tyranny of another
class.
Leaving the subject of labor unrest, the President extolled the legal profession. He quoted
DeTocqueville, who in 1835 said, ―I cannot believe that a republic could subsist at the present
time if the influence of lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of
the people.‖ Harris recalled that thirty of the fifty-five members of the federal Constitutional
Convention were lawyers. As an example of what happens when lawyers are in the minority,
Harris referred to an absurd law adopted by the Ohio Legislature which prohibited spear fishing
through the ice between May 1st and September 1st.
President Harris recognized that the bar was not entirely without fault. Reverting again to
plain talk, he said, ―When I speak of lawyers, I have no reference to that small class who have
crept into our profession, who grovel in the dregs of dishonorable practice, the shysters, a set of
turkey buzzards who touch is pollution and whose breath is pestilence.‖
President Harris did not overlook the substantial accomplishments of the Ohio State Bar
Association in his address. The proposal advanced at the preceding convention to increase the
number of years of training for admission to the bar from two to three had been enacted into law
by the General Assembly. The Association‘s recommendation was accepted almost verbatim by
the law makers. While not strictly a project of the Association, a bill to establish a four member
jury commission in each county had been introduced in the legislature by Representative Curtis
E. McBride of Richland County, an active member of the Association. President Harris had long
recognized the need for improvement in the method of selecting jurors and had even prepared
some suggestions on the subject. McBride‘s bill was enacted into law April 23, 1894.
Harris closed by calling for further effort to relieve the Supreme Court and to broaden the
jurisdiction of the Probate Court.
Membership, Finances, and the Lighter Side of Conventions
Evidently, there was a communication problem in the Ohio State Bar Association in those
early years. The first order of business following the President‘s address in 1894 was the report
of the Committee on Admissions and Election of Members. When the Chairman of that
Committee, Mr. Hathaway of Chardon, was called on, he acknowledged that he did not know
that he was the Chairman. He quickly invited the members to convene at his table, but only one
of them responded. How they accomplished it is not clear from the report, but Chairman
Hathaway, for himself and his cohort, announced the names of twenty-eight lawyers as
prospective members of the Association. He further requested leave to offer additional names.
His report was accepted and the applicants were admitted.
At that point, a bemused (and probably embarrassed) Chairman Hathaway reported that he
had now found on his table a letter from the Secretary of the Admissions Committee, William E.
Cushing of Cleveland, who, while not present at the meeting, had evidently not forgotten his
duties. His letter contained a list of outstanding names of prospective members. Among them
were R. E. McKisson and Tom L. Johnson, both future mayors of Cleveland; Theodore E.
Burton, a future Congressman and U.S. Senator; Evan H. Hopkins, a member of one of
Cleveland‘s most prominent families; and A. C. Dustin and H. H. Johnson, each of whom was a
founding member of a prestigious Cleveland law firm.
A motion was made to elect this distinguished group to membership, but the Treasurer pointed
out that the Constitution required the admission fee to accompany the application. A motion was
made to require the Treasurer to advance the money, and the Treasurer took it to mean that he
should advance his personal funds. He dismissed the idea with the chilly observation, ―You
might as well admit them without paying any fee.‖ The Chairman of the Executive Committee,
who had made the motion, hastily stated that he had not meant that the Treasurer should advance
the money from his own pocket. That revelation brought an even more abrupt response from the
Treasurer—he simply said, ―Oh,‖ then moved to lay the matter on the table. Later in the meeting,
the cash miraculously appeared and Mr. Cushing‘s nominees were all admitted to membership.
Treasurer Pike can be forgiven for being grumpy about initiation fee. His report contained the
complaint, perennially familiar, concerning delinquent members and the remarkable inability of
lawyers to distinguish between admission fees and annual dues. Moreover, Pike noted a new
cause for concern—more and more members were paying their dues by personal check, and
since there was no such thing as a central clearing house in those days the Association was
obliged to pay a local bank ten cents per check to cover clearing costs on out-of-town checks.
The Treasurer suggested that, ―as long as … [they] can be bought for three cents,‖ the use of
postal money orders would be a better way to remit dues.
Pike reported that sixty-seven members were delinquent for dues for 1892 and 1893, and that
sixty-seven more were delinquent for 1893 only. The total of active and honorary members at the
opening of the meeting was 413. On the brighter side, the cash balance in the Treasurer‘s hands
was $255.45, which he was ―…happy to be able to report‖ was larger than in any previous year.
Frederick C. Bryan continued as Secretary and was obviously devoting himself assiduously to
the work of the Association. In his report he announced that he had sent postcard notices of the
annual meeting not only to the entire membership, but to five hundred nonmember Ohio lawyers
and to every daily newspaper in the state. The Treasurer may have been mollified by the report
that the Secretary had carried on the work of his office at a total cost of $104.86 for the year, part
of which was defrayed by the sale, for $6.78, of nine volumes of the reports of the proceedings
of the Association. Secretary Bryan also informed the group that it had received signal
recognition when the New York State Bar Association invited Ohio, as one of three selected state
bar associations, to send a representative to the New York convention to tell of the work of the
Ohio State Bar Association. Bar organizations generally were prospering. Twenty-eight states
and territories now boasted professional associations that were engaged in the work of improving
both the administration of justice and the quality of their state bars.
It had been the custom for several years to provide a banquet for the assembled lawyers as a
feature of the convention. Since no charge was made other than the payment of dues, the affair
drew a good crowd, including many lawyers who joined the Association just in time to
participate in the festivities. The banquet of the 1894 convention was a radical departure from
those of previous years in that the wives and daughters of the members were invited to attend at
no charge. How this banquet was handled financially on a treasury cash balance of $255.45 is not
made clear by the reports. However, the chef of the Beebe House did himself proud, as witness
the list of culinary delights which he presented for the edification and enjoyment of the lawyers
and their ladies:
MENU
Mock Turtle
Broiled White Fish a la Maitre de Hotel
Claret
Sweet Breads en Caise
French Peas
Sliced Tomatoes
Roman Punch
Broiled Spring Chicken
Potatoes Nautaise
Moet et Chandon
White Seal
Shrimp Salad
Assorted Cake
Vanilla Ice Cream
Oranges
Bananas
Water Crackers
Edam Cheese
Coffee
***
The foregoing menu might well daunt modern diners, but in 1894 large and elaborate meals
were customary and no one counted calories. It should be noted, also, that the above repast was
consumed in a room without air conditioning during a spell of unusually hot weather. Moreover,
after the banquet, ―The company was favored with a mandolin solo by Miss Nellie High,‖ and
this was followed by toasts and lengthy speeches in response.
The toastmaster for the occasion was General A. W. Jones of Youngstown. He went out of his
way to praise Treasurer Pike for opening ―his hart and his pocketbook both‖ so that the ladies
could be invited (Treasurer Pike‘s reaction is not recorded). Jones thought it would be wonderful
to invite the ladies again, and said that the turnout would be even larger because, ―my friend
[President] Harris, who is not very good looking, has got fourteen here now … [and] I am going
to try my hand next year and see what I can do.‖
Civil Rules and Statute Books
The Town Hall of Put-in-Bay was the site of the 16th Annual Meeting. President Charles Pratt
of Toledo acknowledged that the delivery of an address was his only function, but proceeded to
do it justice. He launched an attack on the law‘s delays and singled-out some reasons for it.
Unlike many critics, Pratt came up with specific recommendations to modernize and streamline
court procedure. Some of his suggested remedies make worthwhile reading because of their
striking similarity to some of the ideas expressed in the current Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
On the subject of money contracts, President Pratt proposed that they be enforced by a
verified copy, showing the amount claimed, being served by the creditor on the debtor. Then if in
five or ten days the amount was not paid or if no notice of defense was served upon the creditor,
the papers would be filed with the clerk of court who would be empowered to enter judgment
and issue execution. If the debtor had a defense, it would have to be filed in court and a trial
would be had forthwith.
In cases where personal service could not be had, Pratt suggested that the papers be filed in
court with proof of service by publication and the case would then be submitted to the court for
judgment and assessment of damages.
Addressing himself to appeals from the trial court, the President said that he would abolish
them and substitute a proceeding for review in which the clerk would certify the record direct to
the circuit court where it would be heard on notice to the other party, without further pleading or
process.
Finally, he urged that forms for all notices, affidavits and pleadings be made mandatory by
incorporation into the statutes. Pratt recalled that when the Code of Civil Procedure (the Field
Code) was adopted in Ohio in 1853, the framers attached a set of suggested forms of pleadings to
their report. As a young lawyer, he had used these forms to his sorrow. The older lawyers and
judges who had grown up in the tradition of strict forms of common law pleading had no use for
them. In fact, they bitterly scorned them and those who used them.
President Pratt specifically stated that the true theory in practice was to have one trial in a nisi
prius court and one review in a court of errors or appeals. More than forty years later the maxim
―one trial and one review‖, was the battle cry in the legislature when the appellate procedure act
was passed. Thus, at least one of Pratt‘s ideas comes to fruition.
Following the presidential address, the Executive Committee submitted its report. Those who
have served on the Executive Committee in recent years and who are accustomed to spending at
least one and sometimes two days each month in the discharge of their duties in Columbus, will
be interested in Chairman Moore‘s report for the year 1895 in which he said, ―As we all know,
the object of an Executive Committee is to provide for the entertainment of the members of the
Association and for the order of business at the meeting. During the year we held two meetings,
both in Columbus and then one here.‖ Upon receipt of that report, L. H. Pike, the Treasurer,
suggested that the committee members be reimbursed for their expenses. Three members of the
Executive Committee spoke against the proposal, and it was dropped.
Frederick C. Bryan of Akron, the Secretary, referred in his report to a meeting of a
neighboring state‘s bar association in which it was agreed that the Ohio State Association ranked
third in the nation based upon its accomplishments.
A new name was added to the roster in the summer of 1895, and it was one with which
lawyers of Ohio would become familiar whether they opened their law books or not. The name
was that of E. O. Randall of Columbus, the Reporter of the Supreme Court. For a quarter of a
century, his name graced the binding of the Ohio State Reports from Volume 52 to Volume 100.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee enlivened the proceedings when it
proposed that the Treasurer procure a copy of the proceedings when it proposed that the
Treasurer procure a copy of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, and that the copy be kept at Put-in-Bay
for the use of the Committee. Judge Pike denounced the idea as extravagant. He said it would be
better to pay him 25 cents to bring his copy from Toledo than to pay $15 to $20 for a set that
would be used one or two years and then lost. E. H. Fitch of Jefferson said that he had hoped that
the publisher would donate a set, but when it was discovered that the Association treasury
contained $735.70, the Committee opined that a set could easily be purchased. Speaking in
behalf of economy, J. F. Laning of Norwalk stated that both the justice of the peace and the
mayor on the island would lend their copy of the statute book at any time. Warner Bateman of
Cincinnati argued that since there was only one copy on the island, he doubted that the
conscientious scruples of its custodian would permit him to give it over to a set of lawyers,
perhaps to be carried away when they leave. He clinched the argument in favor of the proposal
by stating, ―I am willing to forego a part of my banquet for the purpose of getting a set.‖ The
report of the Committee was adopted and the set was purchased. The record is silent as the use to
which it was put or what became of it.
Another bold step which would cost money (albeit from the public treasury) was advocated by
the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee. It offered a resolution urging the
General Assembly to raise the salaries of the judges of the Ohio Supreme Court to $6,000. It was
approved by the Association without debate. Seven years later Simeon M. Johnson of Cincinnati
could report that the Legislature had done just that at its 1902 session.
A general round table discussion produced a number of provocative ideas. A. A. Ferris
suggested that because of the crude and unskillful form and uncertain language of our statutes,
there should be a committee of revision composed of lawyers before whom every statute should
be submitted before final passage. E. R. Eastman of Ottawa thought that ladies should be eligible
for the office of notary public. He also favored a law which would require justices of the peace to
have some knowledge of law in order to hold the office.
A movement which started in New York in 1890 gained favor with the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee at the 1895 Convention. The subject of uniform
state legislation on general subjects had been discussed by the organized bar, but little
constructive action had been taken. Finally, in 1890, the New York Legislature passed a law
authorizing the Governor to appoint a Board of Commissioners to promote uniformity of
legislation in the United States and to consider inviting the other states of the Union to
participate in a convention to draft uniform laws for submission the legislatures of their states.
The American Bar Association supported the effort by appointing a Committee on Uniform State
Legislation. By 1894 twenty-two states had fallen in line by passing appropriate bills and
appointing commissioners. Areas of particular interest for the commissioners included execution
and acknowledgment of deeds, execution of wills, marriage and divorce, and some features of
the negotiable instruments law. Ohio was the most conspicuous and important of those states
which had not yet climbed on the bandwagon. To cure that situation the Judicial Administration
and Legal Reform Committee offered a resolution urging the Legislature to act in order that Ohio
might send Commissioners to participate in the work of the national group. No action was taken
on the proposal at the 1895 meeting.
The Nineteenth Century Draws to a Close
Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay again was the locale when the Ohio State Bar Association met for
its 17th Annual Session on July 15, 1896. It was a proud occasion for the members of the
Association, for one of their number, Governor William McKinley, a Canton lawyer, was the
Republican nominee for President of the United States. It was a sad occasion too, for the
President of the Association, John J. Hall of Akron, was prevented by serious illness from
attending, and he died on the last day of the meeting.
The meeting was called to order by John D. Sullivan of Columbus, Chairman of the Executive
Committee, who noted that his Committee had designated the Senior Vice President of the
Association, John F. Follett of Cincinnati, to deliver the President‘s Address and to preside at the
convention sessions. Follett‘s speech stressed the need for non-partisan elections for judicial
candidates, increased salaries for judges, and provision for temporary replacement of disabled
judges.
Follett pointed out that in Massachusetts, a state with only three-fifths the population of Ohio,
Supreme Court judges received $6,000 per year and were appointed for life or during good
behavior. He added that no state in the Union could boast a supreme court that compared with
that of Massachusetts for the great learning and ability of its members, and for the correctness
and legal profundity of its opinions. Follett then offered this prophecy, the validity of which can
be affirmed by the Ohio State‘s Bar Association‘s Modern Courts Committee of the middle and
late twentieth century: ―We may never be able to depart from the election of the Supreme Court,
but we ought to be able to greatly improve upon that system as it now exists in this state.‖
To illustrate the salary problem in the Supreme Court, Follett recounted the story of a lawyer
and his son who were visiting Columbus and encountered a judge of the Supreme Court. The
lawyer introduced his son to that dignitary. Upon departing the son asked the father why he
called that man a judge. The father responded by saying that he was, in fact, a judge of the state‘s
highest court. The son expressed surprise and said, ―I thought from his dress and personal
appearance that he must be a farmer.‖ The father responded by stating that the man was an
excellent judge but the people of Ohio only paid him farmer‘s wages, and he therefore was
compelled to live and dress like a farmer.
The business of the 17th Annual Meeting then proceeded with the report of the Secretary, H.
B. Arnold of Columbus. His report was a departure from those of his predecessor, in that he
recounted the accomplishments of the Association and made recommendations for future
activity. He was able to report the enlargement of the State House to accommodate the Supreme
Court and the adoption of the Torrens system of land registration, both state bar initiated
projects. For the future, Arnold urged immediate, vigorous, organized activity to recruit new
members.
Judge Louis H. Pike renewed his plea for a seat ex officio on the Executive Committee for the
treasurer, but nothing came of it. The Treasurer had been authorized to purchase two sets of the
Revised Statutes of Ohio for use by the Association‘s several committees. The Judge had used
his influence, however, and with the help of State Senator J. H. Laning of Norwalk, a member of
the Association, and Rep. C. H. Beckham of Toledo, one set was obtained at no cost. The
diplomatic skill with which the transaction was accomplished prompted the Robert Clarke
Company of Cincinnati to donate another set, and the Representative Beckham contributed still
another.
The Executive Committee, which was charged with the task of arranging the program for the
meeting, submitted a bill for $85.25. This included: printing of post cards and programs, $15.25;
postage $5; clerical assistance, $15; and the honorarium and expenses of the convention speaker
$50. The request was approved and ordered paid.
A now-familiar place-name appeared for the first time in the reports of the proceedings of the
Ohio State Bar Association when the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee
announced that it had met with five members present at the Neil House in Columbus. This
venerable hostelry was already well known to Ohioans. Here dwelt Governor and Mrs. William
McKinley. It was the governor‘s custom every hour on the hour to go to the window of his office
in the State House and wave a white handkerchief to Mrs. McKinley who was seated in the
window of their suite in the Neil House.
Matters of concern for the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee were the
termination of the fee system for compensating probate judges, limited use of cognovit
judgments, binding the records and briefs in the Supreme Court, and increasing the salaries of
the judges of that court.
An invariably interesting report is that of the Committee on Admissions. Over the years that
report has contained the names of the great and the near-great, and also of the progenitors of
many present-day Ohio lawyers. Prominent among those proposed for membership in 1896 was
Harry M. Daugherty of Washington Court House, who masterminded the campaign which put
Warren G. Harding of Marion in the White House. Daugherty was a successful political lawyer
and utility lobbyist in Columbus, and became Attorney General of the United States in the
Harding and Coolidge administrations. Another Pomerene from Coshocton, Frank E., joined in
that year. Other names important in the legal profession in Ohio and included in the committee‘s
report were R. M. Wanamaker of Akron and Marcus Shoup of Xenia.
The fine hospitality of the Hotel Victory was recognized in a resolution presented to the
convention for action. Objection was voiced to the resolution by some members who contended
that if it were passed before all of the bills were paid, the hotel management might think that it
was only a thinly-disguised attempt to secure a discount. In spite of, or perhaps because of, this
objection, the resolution was unanimously adopted.
The Committee on Grievances presented a report which might well have emanated from its
modern counterpart. Grave concern was expressed by the Chairman, Edward Ritchie of
Cincinnati, over the activities of certain lawyers in the larger cities and towns who were
advertising themselves as specialists in the personal injury and wrongful death field, and offering
to represent injured parties on a contingent fee basis. Ritchie stated that, ―Your committee are
well satisfied that this practice has progressed to the extent that very many actions have been,
and are being, commenced in our courts, without legal merit or foundation, for the sole purpose
of extortion and for the purpose of compelling the payment of attorney fees, and claims of such
attorneys, rather than litigate against unfounded claims, and to avoid the vexation, annoyance
and expense of same.
The Committee report concluded by proposing that the matter of advertising and other
solicitations be referred to the local bar associations for action. After approval of the report, one
member of the Association, Warner M. Batement, offered a pertinent suggestion which might be
heeded as well today as it was then. He said that unless some direct action was taken, the report
would be approved and carried into the reports, and there it would repine. Bateman then moved
that the Secretary send a copy to the bar association in each of the cities involved, and that it be
published in the Legal News and the Bulletin. The motion was adopted. What positive results
were achieved is questionable, because most of the evils still persist.
Apparently some of the committees of the Association took their assignments rather lightly.
One such was the Committee on Legal Education. One of its members, M. R. Patterson,
announced that the group had not met during the past year and probably had no report to make.
As a substitute for a Committee report, Patterson had prepared a comprehensive statement on the
numerous shortcomings in the admission process for new lawyers. Heeding cries of ―Read,
Read,‖ Patterson proceeded to present his paper, which was a scathing indictment of the system.
One of the then current procedures for preparing for the bar was for the student to ―read law‖
under a practicing lawyer‘s tutelage. The lawyer in turn certified to the Supreme Court that the
student had put in the required time. The Supreme Court then appointed a committee of lawyers
in the applicant‘s home county to examine him. One of the unofficial perquisites of the
examining committee was a ―treat‖ supplied by the applicant, and Patterson indicated that the
grade of the applicant bore a direct relationship to the amount and liberality of the treat. Quoting
from a speech given by Justice Brewer of the U.S. Supreme Court before the American Bar
Association, he stated, ―The door of admission to the bar must swing on reluctant hinges, and
only he be permitted to pass through who has by continued and special study fitted himself for
the work of a safe counsellor.‖ Patterson indicated that some lawyers were guilty of
unexplainable mental lapses and even downright dishonesty in issuing their certificates as to the
time and nature of the study performed by the students who read law with them.
Unfortunately, the feeling prevailed that somewhere out in the prairie or perhaps in the
Hocking Hills there lurked another Marshall or Lincoln, and the hinges of the door of admission
to the practice should not be reluctant to operate in his case. The situation had deteriorated to
such an extent that Patterson borrowed the words of Justice Brewer to describe it, ―It would be a
blessing to the profession and to the community, as well, if some Noachian deluge would engulf
half of those who have a license to practice.‖
Patterson went on to make a specific proposal based generally upon the system in vogue in
New York State. Under his plan the attorney would be required to file a certificate setting forth
the name, age and date of commencement of study for each student studying under him. A
permanent board of examiners for the whole state would replace the temporary commissions in
each county. All applicants would pay a fee of $15 and take an examination in Columbus. The
fee would be used to pay the expenses of the Board of Examiners.
Gen. A. W. Jones moved that Mr. Patterson be named as a committee of one to take up the
matter with the Supreme Court, and that he be authorized to state that his proposal was the
sentiment of the Association. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously carried.
The only evidence of any social activity at the meeting was the announcement of the
Chairman of the Executive Committee, John D. Sullivan of Columbus that there would be an
excursion on the steamboat Arrow, and that there would be ―reasonable‖ refreshments on board.
***
Inclement weather and a program devoid of social diversion greeted the lawyers of Ohio and
their families when they converged upon the Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay on July 20, 1897.
Nevertheless, it was an auspicious time. One of their earliest and most faithful members, William
McKinley, was the President of the United States, and he had called another member, William R.
Day, to be Secretary of State. The President of the Association, Judge George K. Nash, in a few
years would be Ohio‘s Governor.
In his annual address, President Nash urged the lawyers both in and out of the legislature to be
eternally vigilant to prevent the adoption or retention of unconstitutional laws. He noted the
gradual shift of Ohio from a rural state to one where business and industry were dominant: in the
period 1803 to 1851, approximately 3,240 corporations were organized by special acts of the
legislature; from 1851 to 1897 an almost identical time span—22,640 corporations were
registered in the office of the Secretary of State. The President called for more stringent
regulatory measures to prevent these corporations from defrauding the public. Nash also
expressed concern over the laxity of the Ohio laws respecting railroads and their financing. As
evidence of their laxity, he pointed out that there were 8,934 miles of railroads in Ohio and that
each mile was the basis for outstanding stocks and bonds allegedly worth more than $153,000.
Obviously, a mile of railroad right of way was worth nothing near that amount, which meant that
many investors in railroad securities were actually holding the bag.
The Committee on Admissions, evidently responding to the prodding administered at the
preceding annual meeting, offered the names of 55 lawyers for membership. Among the new
members was Atlee Pomerene of Canton, who gained fame as the prosecutor in the Teapot Dome
scandals. Paul Howland of Cleveland also joined in that year. Later he became a member of
Congress. The name of Sater has long been prominent in the legal profession in Columbus. J. E.
Sater was the first lawyer of that name to appear in the Association‘s roster when he was elected
to membership in 1897. The Secretary‘s report rounded-out the call for increased activity in
membership recruiting. Secretary H. B. Arnold stated somewhat acidly that more care should be
used in selecting the Committee on Admissions and that those chosen should put forth some
extra effort.
The Secretary‘s total expenditures of $89.35 included a first. The sum of $1.25 was expended
by the Secretary for the use of Alexander Graham Bell‘s miraculous device, the telephone. The
Ohio State Bar Association was, it seems, inching into the electronic age.
The Treasurer‘s report contained some stern advice, together with the suggestion that if the
membership thought that the advice was impertinent, he would gladly step aside. Speaking of the
convention entertainment, Judge L. H. Pike, the perennial guardian of the exchequer said,
―Receptions and banquets are an agreeable feature of our annual gatherings; but wine and cigars
are not easily provided out of the pittance of $2 annual dues, and nineteen years‘ observation
prove to me that such as join, or attend our meetings, merely for the sake of the entertainments
do not always prove permanent and valuable members.‖ Perhaps Pike‘s thought was the
forerunner of the statement of Vice President Thomas R. Marshall that what this country needs is
a good five cent cigar. In any event, it would seem that Pike was still smarting from the effect of
the 1894 banquet on the treasury.
The membership stood at just under 380 and the cash balance in the treasury was $458.91, up
$33.46 from the previous year.
The Executive Committee report elicited some verbal fireworks. It contained a
recommendation that the members of both the Executive Committee and the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee be reimbursed for their actual expenses incurred in
attendance at the meetings of those groups. Mr. Patterson objected strongly, saying ―I take the
position that these are places of honor. They are places that are sought after … and they are big
enough places and there are big enough members to fill them, and/or willing to contribute their
time and whatever little expense is connected with them, for the good of the Association.‖
The opposing view was expressed by Patterson‘s fellow townsmen, E. B. Dillon, who said, ―I
think this association can be grand and noble, and I think we should be big enough to offer to pay
it.‖ The report was tabled until the next day when the Treasurer pointed out that a review of
previous treasurer‘s reports showed that allowances had been made to committees of the
Association in the past to cover the expenses of their members in attending meetings. The
clincher was delivered by a member who stated that a lawyer from his district would have
expenses of $15 to attend a committee meeting in Columbus and if that were apportioned over
the entire membership, it would amount to five cents. That member felt certain that the other
members of the Association would cheerfully contribute a nickel apiece to cover those expenses.
With that statement, the report was approved.
M. R. Patterson, the one-man committee appointed to meet with the Supreme Court to discuss
revision and strengthening of the rules and statutes covering admission to the bar, reported that
he had met with the Court in January, but that the Court had done nothing. Patterson had
prepared a draft of a proposed rule to carry out the suggestions made by him at the 1896 meeting,
but this proposal was not in the hands of the Court. The whole subject was re-opened when the
committee on Legal Education presented its report. Judge John A. Shauck of Dayton, a member
of the Ohio Supreme Court, asked that a committee of five be appointed to draw such rules as
would carry out the purposes of the Association with respect to the admission to the bar, and that
the proposed rules be submitted to the Supreme Court along with the names of twenty-five
lawyers competent to serve as members of the examining commission. The judge‘s suggestion
was adopted.
Reference had been made at a previous meeting to the fact that certain attorneys were falsely
certifying the periods of time that students had studied under them. Upon motion of Warner M.
Bateman of Cincinnati, a committee consisting of Past President J. J. Moore, E. B. Dillon and A.
D. Follett was appointed with instructions to investigate this matter thoroughly and if the charges
were found to be true, to bring the matter before the Supreme Court for appropriate action.
Although the Executive Committee had planned a four-day convention, by opening of the
afternoon session of the third day all of the business was nearly completed. The officers for the
ensuring year were announced. They were: Judson Harmon of Cincinnati, President; and L. H.
Pike of Toledo, Treasurer. In this connection, it will be noted that the committee on election of
officers never chose a vice president or president elect. Article V of the Constitution as originally
adopted provided that one vice president should be chosen from each judicial district by the
membership in those districts. Custom then called for the designation of one of those Vice
Presidents to be the senior vice president.
The City of Cleveland was to be the site of the American Bar Association‘s Annual Meeting
on August 25, 1997. President Nash appointed Samuel F. Hunt, of Cincinnati, a past president;
C. E. McBride of Mansfield; A. T. Brinsmade of Cleveland; J. T. Holmes of Columbus, a past
president; and General Asa W. Jones of Youngstown, a past president, to act as a special host
committee from the Ohio State Bar association and to extend all possible courtesies to the
nation‘s lawyers when they gathered in Cleveland.
The Annual Reports of the Ohio State Bar Association in the early years carried a series of
memorial addresses eulogizing the prominent lawyers who had died in the preceding year. These
memorials paint a fascinating picture of life in Ohio from frontier days onward, and give
valuable insights into the political and professional life of the Buckeye States. Frequently, they
contain material which, although written nearly one hundred years ago, is as worthwhile and
instructive now as it was then. An excellent example is contained in the memorial of William J.
Gilmore of Columbus, who served as President of the Association from December 30, 1885, to
December 29, 1886. Judge Gilmore was a member of the Ohio Supreme Court. As a youth in
Preble County, he was uncertain as to his life‘s work. He wrote to an uncle who was a judge in
Mississippi in 1844 seeking advice. The reply deserves recording and reflection: ―Without an
intimate personal acquaintance with you, my advice could not be greatly relied on, because there
is no pursuit or profession in which success so entirely depends on the habits and qualities of
each individual, as the law. Good capacity, industry, energy and an untiring habit of study
cultivated and continued through life, are the elements out of which successful lawyers must be
formed. It is a thorny and difficult way, and none should enter upon it, who expect to find it
strewn with roses. If you embark, throw your whole soul into it and never tire. An extensive
course of reading and enlarged education are valuation auxiliaries, and the lawyer‘s acquaintance
with history, especially English and American, should be thorough. Biography, particularly of
lawyers, should claim his careful attention. There is no holiday or easy road to legal learning.
The foundation must be laid broad and deep and this can only be done by the reading and
reflection of the student; no one has ever yet made a lawyer, in the true sense of the word, but by
his own patient and enduring study.‖
***
To those of us accustomed to a well-organized convention with a carefully planned program,
the Annual Meeting of 1898 would have been a little unsettling.
The session was called to order on July 12 at the Hotel Victory in Put-in-Bay by R. D.
Marshall of Dayton, the chairman of the Executive Committee. First, two of the guest speakers
were unable to attend after making firm commitments. Then, differences of opinion arose
between the Association‘s Executive Committee and the hotel management over the banquet.
The latter, with an eye to profit and the accommodation of other guests, decreed that: the
banquet would have to be held at 9:30 P.M.; an exact number of dinners must be ordered and
paid for whether eaten or not; and no additional guests over and above the fixed numbers would
be admitted. The Executive Committee took this ill. As Chairman Marshall said, some of the
members, lulled by the gentle breezes on Lake Erie, liked to go to bed earlier than 9:30 P.M.
Also, he pointed out that Noah, when he built the ark, did not shut the door until all had an
opportunity to come, and he did not feel that the Bar Association should do less for its members
and their ladies. Marshall then left the decision of whether to hold a banquet or not to the
membership. Apparently, the soothing effect of the Lake Erie breezes prevailed over the lure of
late-night culinary delights, for no further discussion of the banquet appears in the report for
1898 nor does the Treasurer‘s statement for 1899 show any expenditure for that purpose.
Judson Harmon, who was to be governor of Ohio, was then the incumbent President of the
Association. The nation was at war with Spain, and President Harmon noted in his address to the
membership that matters of national concern preempted the time normally devoted to state laws
and court decisions in his constitutionally mandated speech. Controversy was raging over the
intentions of the United States in waging war on Spain. The war resolutions adopted by the
Congress expressly stated that the American Republic did not covet the possessions of the
enemy, but when Dewey conquered the Spanish fleet at Manilla Bay, many exultant Americans,
some of them in high places, declared that the United States would keep whatever it took by
force of arms.
President Harmon proceeded to examine the issue—not as a matter of policy, but as one of
constitutional right. He recounted the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, Florida and Alaska,
the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition of California. This, he said, was done pursuant to
the implied powers referred to in the Constitution, because nothing in the Constitution
specifically authorized such action except as an incident to the war power. Harmon pointed out
that the previous territorial accessions were all contiguous to the national domain, with the
exception of Alaska. The constitutional provisions respecting territory, he said, contemplated
only growth within the confines of the American continent. ―We should have to change both the
name and the nature of our nation to admit any state out of America, especially if it be populated
by alien races,‖ said Harmon. He concluded by saying, ―It is not pleasant to play Cassandra. It is
easier to join in the shouting and dancing of those who seem to think the past is dead and the
future assured. But one‘s duty to his country is to give warning of evil when he believes he
detects its approach.‖
It should be remembered that the Commander-In-Chief was William McKinley, and that he
had been placed in that position largely through the efforts of the powerful Republican leader,
Marc Hanna. Harmon was no admirer of Hanna, and their differences were well known.
Nevertheless, Harmon‘s address was obviously sincere and scholarly, and contained the most
statesman-like utterances of any president‘s address delivered to the Association up to that point.
The stern admonitions made in 1897 to the Committee on Admissions had a profound effect.
When the Committee reported on its efforts, seventy new members were accepted and eleven
former members were reinstated. Again, the list contained names which are still prominent in the
legal profession in their respective localities. Among them were Charles L. Flory of Newark;
Wade H. Ellis of Cincinnati; David A. Allen of Newark; and E. M. Wickham of Delaware.
While he was not a new member, the Association did make one addition to its rolls. The
President of the United States, William McKinley, was moved from regular to ex-officio
membership in 1898.
The first recommendation in the report of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee was that Ohio should abolish the scintilla rule. James O. Troup of Bowling Green,
speaking strongly in favor of the recommendation stated that he had written to the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of every state in the Union to inquire whether the scintilla rule was in
effect in their state. Half of them had responded and only one state still retained the rule. The
discussion raged back and forth for twenty-two pages and brought forth such diverse
pronouncements as, abolition of the scintilla rule would destroy the right of trial by jury and a
non-sequitur that in Indiana, which has some of the best lawyers in the United States, the
constitution provides that any man of good moral character must be admitted to the bar even
though he has not studied law. The latter statement precipitated a recess until the afternoon
session.
Apparently the noon meal and recess did little to provide light with which to settle the scintilla
issue. After another protracted debate, Judge Gilbert D. Munson of Zanesville moved that further
discussion be postponed until the next annual meeting. That motion was quickly adopted.
The next recommendation of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee
provoked some merriment even though it was worthwhile and was approved. The proposal was
that the trial judge, when satisfied that allegations or denials are made in the pleadings without
the expectation of maintaining them at the trial, shall assess a penalty of double the amount of
the costs made in consequence of such allegations or denials. In support of the recommendation,
Judge Munson cited the case where a railroad was sued for killing livestock on its right of way in
Muskingum County. In its answer, the railroad denied that it ran through that county. He also
mentioned a partition case where a son, in his answer, denied that his father and mother were
married. The latter denial might be entitled to substantial credence in the late twentieth century,
but it was unthinkable in 1899 and the statement brought peals of laughter from the assembled
barristers.
Seven more recommendations of the Committee ground through the mill, one of which was
that no one but a member of the bar should be eligible for the office of probate judge. That
proposal was endorsed by the Association, but apparently the legislature was more cautious for
the proposal was not enacted into law for many years.
S. R. Harris of Bucyrus, a past president, introduced a new custom at the meeting in 1899
when he presented a book containing autobiographies of nearly 500 lawyers, which
autobiographies he had personally collected. Harris expressed the wish that the work be
continued, but it soon fell by the wayside.
An excellent suggestion was offered by C. E. McBride of Mansfield. Simeon M. Johnson had
offered a resolution which drew substantial applause. It was as follows: ―Resolved, that it is the
sense of this Association that the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ohio should be
increased to a sum commensurate with the dignity of the position, and the arduous duties of that
office.‖ McBride then said that he was unfortunate enough to have spent several terms in the
legislature, and that if the members of the Bar Association would spend less time passing
resolutions and more time keeping in touch with the members of the General Assembly in their
respective counties, more would be accomplished.
J. J. Moore of Ottawa also offered a suggestion. Speaking about the Johnson resolution, he
said, ―I know of no way to get the salaries raised excepting to have the members of the
Association become candidates for the Legislature.‖ That proposal met with little enthusiasm,
although one member did suggest that they should send McBride back again. That idea brought
no response from the former legislator.
The Nominating Committee recommended the election of Virgil P. Kline of Cleveland as
President, H. A. Mykrantz of Ashland, as Secretary, and the re-election of Judge L. H. Pike as
Treasurer. The recommendation was accepted by the convention, and for the first time since the
founding meeting the Association had chosen a Cleveland lawyer as its leader.
***
The dove of peace evidently commuted between Columbus and Put-in-Bay in the early days
of 1899. In any event, whatever differences had existed between the management of the Hotel
Victory and the Executive Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association were apparently
resolved and the 10th Annual Meeting convened on the historic island for the twelfth consecutive
year.
President Virgil P. Kline of Cleveland delivered a scholarly and thoughtful address, part of
which was to prophesy the battle lines in the new century. As the basis for this address, President
Kline propounded two questions: Has the legal profession in the United States declined in
prestige during the past fifty years? Has the real influence of the legal profession declined in
proportion to its loss of prestige?
To answer these questions he referred to the great French commentator on our American
Republic, Alexander De Tocqueville. It was De Tocqueville who said, ―If I were asked were I
place the American aristocracy, I would reply without hesitation that it is not composed of the
rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.‖ That
statement, of course, was made in the early days of the Republic. Kline then pointed out that with
the growth of industry and commerce since the Civil War, the balance of power had shifted. Now
the great fortunes which had been acquired enabled a new ruling class to emerge and supplant
the legal profession in positions of leadership. He raised the cry that the remuneration allowed
those engaged in public service was not sufficient to induce capable men to seek elective office.
Kline argued also that politics had fallen so completely into the hands of the party organizations
that it was now a separate and distinct profession. Thus, the busy lawyer was in no position to
take the time to learn the trick and artifices necessary to succeed. Consequently, lawyers no
longer exerted the influence they once did in forming legislation and directing public affairs.
Kline believed that the decline in oratory, an art in which lawyers were singularly adept,
contributed to the loss of their prestige. He said that forensic eloquence was a lost art. Thus,
Kline concluded that the prestige of the legal profession was clearly diminished.
In answering his second question Kline recognized a new phenomenon: the use by certain
demagogues of the fact of the bar‘s opposition to their candidacies as a reason why the people
generally should support them. ―Why is this?‖ Kline inquired. He believed that it was due to the
fact that reverence for authority was declining everywhere (What would he think if he were alive
today?). Another and important reason, Kline held, was the broadening of educational
opportunities and the increasing availability of literature. No longer was the lawyer, with his
rigorous education, the only one in the area with a college or professional education.
Kline said that the judiciary, too, must assume its share of the blame for the loss of prestige
and influence of the profession. With an elective judiciary and limited compensation there was
no longer any incentive for the best lawyers to aspire to the bench. Consequently, more and more
judicial positions were being meted out to party faithful as a reward for service to the
organization. He then leveled a serious charge. ―Some of the very lawlessness which afflicts
certain communities of this state, I make no doubt, is due to the deplorable feeling that the laws
are not faithfully and impartially administered by incorruptible judges. If the fountains of justice
are impure, stained by hidden and corrupting influences, distrust begets hatred, hatred violence,
and disorder prevails.‖
Kline cited another cause for alarm. With the emergency of the great corporations, more and
more of the lawyers who once sought public office or the great rewards of a successful practice
as the fitting climax of their careers were leaving the practice and entering the employ of these
corporations. The void was being filled by men of lesser talent and the public was quick to note
this fact.
Despite the loss of prestige and influence which Kline noted in answering his second question
in the affirmative, he said that there was a place where the bar of Ohio could do important and
long needed work in the area of legal reform. Specifically, he stated that Ohio‘s fifty-years-old
tax laws were in need of total revision. Another field where the lawyer‘s training would redound
to the public benefit was in the field of public utility law, and the solution of questions raised by
municipal ownership of those utilities. One question which Kline asked was still being disputed
and debated nearly eighty years later in his home city of Cleveland: ―Would municipal
ownership of quasi-public agencies result in improvement of quality and cheapening of cost to
the public, or would they open fresh fields for political corruption and exploitation by the boss?‖
The final reform to which Kline directed the bar to address itself was the deplorable situation
with respect to the classification of cities, and the special laws enacted for these various
classifications. In spite of the constitutional mandate that all laws of a general nature should have
uniform application, the legislature with Supreme Court approval had developed the
classification principle into an almost unbelievable log-rolling game. A special commission
appointed by the governor had recommended a bill to correct the evil, and Kline urged the
Association to take a strong stand in favor of it.
The members of the Ohio State Bar Association in convention assembled, having had their
respective egos deflated by their President, took up the subject of membership, and once again
the Committee on Admissions had done yeoman service. A total of 158 lawyers were either
admitted or reinstated as members of the Association. The ever-watchful overseer of the
Treasury, Judge L. H. Pike, immediately pointed out that one-third of the applicants had
neglected to deposit their admission fee and that about one-half of them had not paid their dues
for the first year. By common consent it was agreed that the new members would be enrolled
only upon payment of the admission fee and dues.
As usual, the list of new members contained names important in legal and political circles of
that era and also in later years. Among them were: George B. Okey, Columbus; F. M. Stevens,
Elyria; David B. Day, Canton; Charles L. Guernsey, Fostoria; Frederick C. Howe, Cleveland;
Harrison B. McGraw, Cleveland; S. Prentiss Baldwin, Cleveland; Louis H. Winch, Cleveland;
John M. Sweeney, Wooster; W. R. Hopkins, Cleveland; and Willis Vickery, Cleveland.
The report of the Secretary, H. A. Mykrantz of Columbus, was relatively brief. He noted in his
report that his predecessor had been reminded by the Association in its 1897 meeting that no
report from the Secretary was required by the Constitution. Mykrantz limited his report to the
bare essentials but he did say that wide distribution was being given to the reports of the
proceedings of the Association. Requests had been received for copies from lawyers in states
where no state bar association existed, in order that the copies could be used as guides in
organizing an association. One cheering note in the report was that the organization boasted 474
members as of the close of the 1898 meeting.
The Treasurer‘s Report reflected the prosperity generated by the increase in membership. The
opening cash balance of $596.11 jumped to $688.38 by the end of the fiscal year. For the second
year in a row the name of Laning Printing Co., of Norwalk, appeared. That company (which in
1968 was acquired by the Association) received the sum of $295.50 for printing the annual report
of the proceedings. This was the largest single expense. The smallest was 35 cents, for shipping
books to Put-in-Bay. The Treasurer was still being plagued by the bank at Toledo, which charged
him 50 cents for the cost of collecting checks for dues issued by members on out-of-town banks.
The second day of the meeting produced a surprise. The President announced that due to a
previous engagement over which he had no control, he would have to leave the island. He
thanked the membership for the honor it had conferred upon him by electing him President. He
then designated J. D. Sullivan of Columbus as the presiding officer for the balance of the
meeting, and departed.
The report of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee was presented at the
afternoon session on July 12, and it followed the usual scenario. Concern had been expressed by
some members over the alleged laxity of the Ohio corporation law. A sub-committee was
appointed to consider the matter. The sub-committee split over the issue of whether or not the
subject of corporations was a proper one for consideration by the Ohio State Bar Association.
The issue was postponed until the next annual meeting.
For the first time since he joined the Association, the name of Atlee Pomerene of Canton
appeared as a participant in the debates and activities. Pomerene, who later achieved fame as one
of the prosecutors of the Teapot Dome scandal, quite fittingly proposed that the Association draft
and sponsor a bill to make the forging of a stock certificate a crime. Him motion was duly
adopted.
The Committee on Nominations proposed the names of Peter A. Laubie of Salem for
President, H. A. Mykrantz of Ashland as Secretary and L. H. Pike of Toledo as Treasurer. The
presidential nomination was a surprise, for the name of Mr. Laubie had been included in the list
of newly admitted members of the Association at the annual meeting of the previous year. In any
event, he and the other members of the slate were duly elected, and prepared to launch the
Association into the Twentieth Century.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE NEW CENTURY
“With every succeeding meeting our mental kaleidoscope changes. We have new
ideas, new problems, new duties. Yet our responsibilities as to all the old ones
seem never to e discharged … What then as an association can we do in respect
of the new questions? … [We can] assume the initiative in discussing and
formulating opinion upon the new and unsettled important questions, both of
substantive and adjective law …”
John W. Warrington
***
The Age of Majority
J. O. Troup of Bowling Green, Chairman of the Executive Committee, call the Ohio State Bar
Association Convention to order on July 10, 1900 at the Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay in the
following words: ―… I congratulate you upon the fact of this being the twenty-first anniversary
of our Association. The child of our affections has grown in stature, in strength and in vigor,
until it has reached the period of its manhood, with bright prospects of honor and usefulness
before it.‖
He then called upon the President of the Association, Judge Peter A. Laubie of Salem, for the
annual address. Troup‘s introduction of Judge Laubie indicates the probable explanation for the
election of a man to the presidency in the first year after his admission to a membership in the
State Bar. He said, ―… I have a pleasanter duty, that of introducing to you your President, whose
long and honorable life at the bar, and whose eminent services upon the bench entitle him to the
honor which you conferred upon him one year ago.‖ Thus, it appears that the presidency was
bestowed as an honor for service to the profession rather than to the Association.
The Judge, in his opening remarks, laid the ground work for a controversial speech by stating
that if he offended any one, it should be remembered that the office came to him unsought and
that his consent had not even been obtained. He also suggested that anyone who wished was free
to leave the hall.
Laubie‘s immediate predecessor in office, Virgil P. Kline, had concluded that the prestige and
influence of the bar was on the wane and placed some of the blame on politically oriented
judges. Laubie denied the loss of prestige and influence nationally, but admitted that it might be
true locally. The blame for that loss rested squarely upon the shoulders of the better lawyers who
refused to participate in state and local politics. As for the Ohio judiciary being responsible in
part, the President said, ―I am free to say that no nobler, more honorable, or more conscientious
body of men ever sat on a judicial bench in any state or country, or practiced at its bar.‖ In
support of his contention that the legal profession retained its influence nationally, Laubie cited
the fact that of the nine men elected to the Presidency in the first half of the nineteenth century
seven were lawyers and of the nine elected in the second half eight were lawyers.
Addressing himself momentarily to bar association matters, President Laubie urged action
instead of criticism. This could best be done by lawyers if they joined their local and state bar
associations and actively participated in the work of those groups. That peculiar Ohio malady
which for lack of a better name could be called the ―Cuyahoga Complaint‖ was apparently quite
virulent even in the early days. Decrying the fact that of the thousands of lawyers in Ohio, fewer
then 500 belonged to the state bar association, Laubie concentrated his fire on Cleveland. He
pointed out that even though the Association was organized there in 1880, and that there were
nearly 800 lawyers there, and that they were only three hours from Put-in-Bay by good
transportation, only six lawyers and scarcely any judges from Cleveland attended the annual
meeting.
After briefly touching on some legislative matters, the President launched upon a panegyric
which covered: the multitude of scientific advancements and accomplishments of the 19th
century, which he called the most notable in the history of the world; a critical discussion of the
failure of the educational systems of the United States and Great Britain; and the evils of the
English criminal law and lynch law in the United States. He then proceeded to castigate the
federal government and the administration of William McKinley for an alleged program of
territorial aggrandizement. His dissertation bristled with citations of Supreme Court cases,
quotations from letters from the military leaders, excerpts from sermons preached in behalf of
the foreign missionary movement, and bits of poetry, all calculated to prove how mischievous
was the course on which we were embarked.
The record is silent as to how many persons took advantage of the president‘s suggestion that
they might leave the hall, and it is interesting to speculate on how long it would take today to
delete the constitutional mandate for an annual address by the president, were the incumbent to
exercise his prerogative in the manner in which Judge Laubie did in 1900. Upon the conclusion
of the President‘s address, Chairman Troup announced that the evening‘s entertainment would
consist of vocal and instrumental music, perhaps to soothe the souls of those who had weathered
the oratorical storm.
The report of the Committee on Admissions is always a good indication of the strength and
progress of the state bar. Judging by the number of admissions in 1900, the organization was
prospering. Sixty-five new members joined and three former members were reinstated, and the
list of new members included many names still prominent in Ohio legal circles: Henry Bannon
of Portsmouth; R. H. Day of Canton; Thomas B. Paxton of Cincinnati, and Harold W. Fraser and
H. C. Adams, both of Toledo. The first lady lawyer from Cleveland to become a member, Miss
Gabrielle Townsend Stewart, was among those who joined the Association in 1900. The
Admissions Committee had heeded the admonitions of the Treasurer so completely on the
subject of advance payments of dues and fees that the Treasurer himself moved the adoption of
the report.
The report of L. H. Pike as Treasurer also attested to the continuing growth of the Association.
The case balance in his hands had increased over $100 from the previous year and now stood at
$797.51. This report contained two curious items—expenditures of $50.90 and $42.60 for
expenses and hotel bills of ladies ―invited by two members‖ (who remained nameless) were
listed without further explanation.
The wisdom of the rule of ―cash on the barrelhead‖ was proven again by Judge Pike‘s remarks
in connection with his report. It will be remembered that 1899 was a banner year for new
memberships, but of the 150 applicants, only 75 had paid the fees. Pike sent cards to each of the
remaining 75 reminding them of their monetary obligation, but only 25 responded.
The judge went on to complain that he was devoting a disproportionate amount of time to the
Treasurer‘s job, considering the current compensation of $75 per year. In 1899 he had submitted
an additional bill for $25 for his own time and that of a clerk he had hired, but the Executive
Committee disregarded it. Pike said that no one would do the amount of work that he did for
$300 and that he had been on the verge of resigning but his friends dissuaded him. The judge
then requested the sum of $50 to cover extra work and clerical services for the preceding two
years, which was approved. It was then moved that the Treasurer‘s compensation be increased to
$100 per year, and that motion also carried.
Simeon M. Johnson was recognized by the Chair at that point to inform the convention on the
status of the bar‘s bill to increase the salaries of the Supreme Court judges. Johnson was
probably familiar with the cry often heard in the halls of the legislature, ―This is a lawyer‘s bill!‖
The Association‘s proposal called for a salary of $7,500. A bill calling for $6,000 was introduced
in the House, but it was defeated. Another bill was then offered in the Senate at the same figure.
A compromise was negotiated at $5,000 and that bill, thanks to the efforts of Simeon M.
Johnson, Representative Harry N. Hoffheimer, and Senator Alfred M. Cohen, was enacted.
A far-sighted address was delivered by Gilbert H. Stewart of Columbus on, ―The Education of
Lawyers.‖ Steward described the defects in the present system, which allowed an applicant to
―read law‖ under the tutelage of a lawyer. Stewart noted that the good lawyer was a busy one,
and did not have the time to supervise properly the preparation of his student. The deficiencies of
the preceptor system were best shown, according to Stewart, by the number of times some of
those who ―read law‖ took the bar examination. At the most recent examination, one applicant
had failed for the twelfth time. Others were taking it for the fifth, sixth or seventh time.
Admitting that perseverance was a good quality, Stewart said that that kind of perseverance
would not necessarily make a good lawyer. He then told the story of the young man who aspired
to be a preacher, but each time he applied to the bishop for consideration, he was turned down.
Finally he told the bishop of a vision he had had which clearly demonstrated that he was destined
to preach the Gospel. Asked to elaborate, the young man said that he had seen the vision three
times and each time there was the figure of the Savior standing beside his bed, pointing to the
wall where was emblazoned the letters ―G.P.C.‖ to the youth this clearly meant ―Go Preach
Christ.‖ The Bishop informed him that the vision had been misinterpreted: ―Actually,‖ he said,
―the letters G.P.C. mean ‗Go Plow Corn‘.‖ Stewart suggested that the bar should have a
counterpart with the power and authority of the bishop, who could tell some of the applicants for
the bar to ―go plow corn.‖
Gen. Asa W. Jones reported for the Nomination Committee and reflected the feelings of the
convention concerning both the speech of President Laubie and the anecdote of Gilbert Stewart.
He said ―I think I hazard nothing, Mr. President, when I assure you that in the next year the
President will bring nothing to us in the line of theology and he will bring nothing to us in the
line of partisanship …‖ The nominee was Robert D. Marshall of Dayton. H. A. Mykrantz of
Ashland, and Judge L. H. Pike of Toledo, were nominated for Secretary and Treasurer
respectively. The Report was accepted by the convention.
The Course of Empire
The 22nd Annual Meeting was scheduled for July 9 through 12, 1901, and the loyalties of
Edward Kibler and several other members of the Executive Committee were put to the test,
because the Democratic state convention was to meet in Columbus at the same time. Party
loyalty prevailed, and it was necessary for J. O. Troup of Bowling Green to call the meeting to
order. Absenteeism seemed to be the rule, for Troup announced that President R. D. Marshall of
Dayton was confined to his home by illness. The President‘s misfortune presented one of the
Vice-Presidents, Judge David J. Nye, a golden opportunity, and he made the most of it. He
treated the assembled attorneys in Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay to a matchless oration on the
history of the legal profession in Ohio, and the contributions of its most illustrious members to
the government and courts of the state and nation.
The charge had been made that the bar of Ohio did not sustain the degree of excellence in
learning, ability, character and oratory that it once did, and considering the giants of the law who
practiced in the early years, it is not surprising that such a claim might be made. Vice-President
Nye refuted the allegation, pointing out that within the last century the railroads had been built,
the telegraph and telephone developed and the trans-Atlantic cable laid, and great corporations
had emerged to manage these new enterprises. All required the inventive genius of lawyers and,
to deal with modern developments, the lawyer and the judge were required to have far more
knowledge of law and science than was even dreamt of fifty years before. Judge Nye illustrated
his point by saying that if the legendary English judges, such as Littleton or Coke or Hale, could
come back and preside at a trial of a personal injury case arising out of an accident at a railroad
crossing, they would be as unprepared to decide the questions raised by an Ohio lawyer as a
schoolboy would be to calculate the distance from the earth to the other planets.
The judge noted that the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court were cited, followed and
respected everywhere in the nation, and that the records showed no decline in learning, integrity
and ability. The present day judges, Nye said, compared favorably with the great jurists of an
earlier day.
Nye then recited an impressive list of the contributions of the bar of Ohio. On the Supreme
Court of the United States had been Chief Justices Salmon P. Chase of Cincinnati and Morrison
R. Waite of Toledo, and Justices John McLean of Lebanon, Noah H. Swayne of Columbus, and
Stanley Mathews of Cincinnati. In the last quarter of the 19th century three Ohio lawyers,
Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, and William McKinley had reached the highest
pinnacle in American life—the Presidency. The cabinets of many presidents in the preceding
seventy-five years had included Ohio lawyers. Among them were Thomas Corwin of Lancaster,
Salmon P. Chase of Cincinnati, Edwin M. Stanton of Steubenville, Henry Stanberry of
Columbus, William Dennison of Cincinnati, Jacob D. Cox of Cincinnati, Columbus Delano of
Mt. Vernon, Alphonso Taft of Cincinnati, John Sherman of Mansfield, Judson Harmon of
Cincinnati (who was President of the State Bar in 1897) and William R. Day of Canton.
Ney reserved his superlatives for McKinley. The Spanish War having been recently
concluded, Nye said, ―President McKinley has liberated more human beings from the yoke of
Spain than were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Continuing in the same vein, he said,
―He is too broad, too generous and too humane to be circumscribed even by national bounds …
It may be too early to write history; but when the events of the generation and the history of 1897
to 1905 are faithfully and correctly written, the names of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln
and William McKinley will be inseparably linked together. Well may the bar and the State be
proud to count him among their jewels.‖ (Sadly, the great Ohioan did not live to finish her term
in 1905. He was struck down by the bullet of anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, who, even while Judge
Nye was speaking, was living on a farm in Warrensille Township near Cleveland and plotting the
murder of the President.)
Judge Nye summed-up by saying, ―Any lawyer may have just pride in claiming fellowship in
such a professional brotherhood. When his mind dwells upon their lives and character, he may
truly believe that the profession to which he belongs is not going into decline.‖
The Association needed Nye‘s pep-talk. With a membership of less than 700 lawyers, the
Ohio State Bar Association found itself in a position where strong steps had to be taken to insure
its usefulness to the profession. Financially, it was insecure; in legislative matters, it was
relatively impotent; and many of its members were delinquent in their dues. All of these matters
came to light in the report of L. H. Pike of Toledo, the Treasurer, who plainly was unhappy with
the situation. Pike pointed out that the constitution permitted a suspended member to be
reinstated upon payment of a $5 fee but, ―Some members deliberately fail to pay for 3 or 4 years
and compromise with their conscience by asking afterwards to be reinstated on payment of [$5].‖
Among his other problems were the failure of members to supply stamped envelopes for the
receipts for their $2 dues payments, and the fact that checks from small-town banks could not be
cleared by the Toledo bank without payment of an 8% collection fee. ―This accounts for the
large amount of postage on the report,‖ said Pike. It was $12.55.
The Treasurer closed his oral report by stating that in thirteen years he had collected $11,235
and disbursed about $11,000. He had been paid $725 for his services, out of which he paid
clerical and stenographic help, plus his expenses in attending Executive Committee meetings. He
then asked to be relieved of the office. In an effort to dissuade him from his intended retirement,
a motion was adopted to fix the treasurer‘s salary at $200, but Pike stood firm and the effort
failed.
The new Secretary, Smith W. Bennett, surprised everyone by moving that his salary be
reduced from $50 to $25 per year. He said that it was a necessary move in order to have funds
available to pay outstanding bills owed by the Association. His apparent altruism was somewhat
watered-down by his next remark, to the effect that since he was in the Attorney General‘s
Office, he would have the work done by state employees.
A constitutional provision that had proved troublesome provided that no person could be
admitted to the state bar association unless he was a member of his local bar association. Some
local associations were held in such low regard by the members of the local bar that they would
not affiliate with them, and such persons were thus rendered ineligible for membership in the
state association. A motion to delete this provision from the constitution was adopted.
For the 22nd Annual Meeting the executive committee had assembled a star-studded cast of
speakers. The list was headed by McKinley‘s Secretary of State and dues-paying member of the
Association, William R. Day of Canton. State Senator James R. Garfield, son of the martyred
President and also a dues-paying member (he would become Secretary of the Interior in
Theodore Roosevelt‘s cabinet) was also slated to speak.
The speech of Secretary Day was entitled, ―Our Place in the International Family.‖ Day
acknowledged that, up to the time of the Spanish-American War, ours had been a policy of
international isolation—‖We have been called the one great hermit in the family of nations.‖ But,
said Day, ―Modern invention has so annihilated space, means of communication have so brought
the world together, that it is impossible to long avoid the true relation which a strong and
powerful nation must sustain to world affairs.‖ He then went on to explain the negotiations
which resulted in the signing of the protocol in the White House on August 12th of 1898.
Contrary to the allegations of a ruthless demand for territorial aggrandizement, Day pointed out
that the only interest of President McKinley had been to secure indemnification for the losses,
both financial and personal, suffered by the United States. Clearly, he said, the cession of Puerto
Rico and other islands in the West Indies by Spain to the United States was inadequate for that
purpose. Furthermore, he asserted it would be unwise to turn the Philippine Islands back to Spain
and leave the inhabitants to the mercy of the Spaniards. Therefore, the President ordered the
American peace commissioners to insist upon the relinquishment by Spain of all her claims to
the Philippines and certain other Pacific islands. Margaret Leech refers to this momentous
decision in her book, In the days of McKinley, in the following passage: ―The decision was the
occasion of an event of transcendent importance—the entrance of the United States on the stage
of the world … White spring ran past and the harvest ripened, the walls that had enclosed the
republic, like a petty Oriental kingdom, had crumbled into rubble. The passionate young dream
of untrammeled independence was not ended, but the period of American isolation had quietly
drawn to a close in a shabby room on a rainswept August afternoon of 1898.‖
Thus, it is a matter of historic record that an Ohio lawyer, William R. Day, called to head the
State Department by another Ohio lawyer, William McKinley, signed the document which set
the stage for the end of American isolationism.
The audience reaction was expressed by J. A. Troup of Bowling Green when he said, ―I desire
to move a vote of thanks to Judge Day for this comprehensive and masterly address upon a living
issue of the times.‖ The motion was unanimously adopted.
***
The 23rd Annual Meeting was called to order at Hotel Victory in Put-in-Bay, only to have
President S. S. Wheeler of Lima announce that Chief Justice Marshall J. Williams of the Ohio
Supreme Court had died. Thereupon the first day‘s session adjourned after the appointment of a
committee to draft a memorial resolution.
The second day‘s session began with the address of President Wheeler. The turn of the
century saw the intensification of the exodus from the farms to the cities, and the quality of
government did not improve with the increase in population of the municipalities. Conditions
were so bad that an English writer visiting in the United States said that Americans seemed to
have no capacity for municipal government.
Wheeler laid the blame for the low estate of city government on the fact that the best brains
and energy in every community were devoted to business and fathering wealth. ―Municipal
government is distinctly a law problem and can only be solved by the lawyers who have been
trained to practical conservatism and far-seeing effects in meeting changed conditions,‖ said the
President. He added, ―Theorists, college professors, and reformers have spent much time on this
question, and I submit that it is now the sacred duty of the Bar of Ohio, roused to action by this
Association, to give to the people of Ohio a better municipal government.‖
Wheeler‘s address was replete with admonitions which seem timely today. Consider the
following:
―We ought not to always travel under the rim of the dollar. The influence of our profession is
written across constitutions and bills of rights, where the compensation was public joy and
gratitude, not private gain.‖
―The profession of the law imposes upon men many duties and obligations which cannot be
shirked, and should not be marketed at the mint.‖
―What society needs is conservators, not reformers; pruning knives, not meat axes; a quiet
force, checking here, expanding there, and producing a systematic growth rather than a sporadic
enlargement or contraction.‖
―No race has ever struggled toward a better condition that justice did not lead the way, and
justice resides in the courts, and the courts are comprised of judges and lawyers.‖
The trust-busting activities of President Theodore Roosevelt had focused public attention on
the great corporation and business combinations of the day. President Wheeler viewed these
efforts with skepticism and said it was like applying the full pressure of the air brakes to a swiftly
moving train. Said he, ―I maintain that without combination, there cannot be progress, and
without progress, there will soon be anarchy; for you can no more stop or turn back the genius
and restless energy of the American people, and maintain peace and order, than you could
change the current of the Golf Steam and not affect the climate of England.‖
The President had a word of advice for the judiciary: ―All judges cannot be John Marshalls,
but all judges can emulate his painstaking energy, courage and honesty, not the honesty which
scorns a vulgar bribe, but the intellectual honesty which decides as the judgment directs, and not
as political or social expediency insinuates.‖
In 1902 in Ohio, double liability could be assessed against the holder of a share of stock in a
corporation if the corporation failed financially. The elimination of this provision from the law
was endorsed by the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee. A vigorous debate
on the measure took place at the 23rd Annual Meeting, but the recommendation prevailed and
the people concurred by rejecting double liability on corporate stock. The same liability
continued on bank stock until the mid-1930s in Ohio.
Simeon M. Johnson established the fact that in addition to being a faithful attender at State
Bar meetings, he was also a careful reader of law books. Referring to volume 65, the then current
volume of the Ohio State Reports, he noted that the name of Chief Justice John A. Shauck was
misspelled, as well as the words ―gas‖ and vacated,‖ the former appearing in the report as ―gass‖
and the latter as ―vacuated.‖ He moved that a committee of five be appointed to develop some
means of publishing future volumes of the Ohio State Reports ―that are worthy of the name of
this great state.‖ When the motion was challenged, the chair ruled it in order on the ground of the
American right to kick, and it was passed.
John W. Warrington of Cincinnati delivered a speech which threw some light on a strange
quirk in Ohio‘s Constitution. Of all the chief executives of the federal union, including the
President of the United States, only four of them, the Governors of Delaware, North Carolina,
Ohio, and Rhode Island, were denied to veto power. Warrington‘s speech was a timely one,
because the legislature had submitted for a vote by the people a constitutional amendment to visit
that right in Ohio‘s chief executive. Warrington noted that an attempt to establish the veto power
had been defeated in the Constitutional Conventions of 1802 and 1851, and that the proposed
constitution of 1874 (which included the power) had been rejected by the people. The feeling of
Ohioans against gubernatorial vetoes, according to the speaker, stemmed from the strong
resentment which the Jeffersonian Democrats (who settled Ohio in large numbers) bore towards
the imperious Arthur St. Clair in territorial days. Under the Northwest Ordinance, the Governor
possessed that power, and it was alleged that he abused it, since he struck down eleven of thirty
measures which the first territorial legislature though were of great importance.
The effect of the resentment against Governor St. Clair manifested itself in the limited
gubernatorial powers in the Constitution of 1802. An early occupant of the office took stock after
his first week of idleness and found that reprieving criminals and appointing notaries were the,
―sole flowers of the prerogative.‖ Rufus King, the second President of the Ohio State Bar
Association, had described the first state government as having no executive, a half-starved and
short-lived judiciary, and a lopsided legislature.
Warrington closed his remarks by calling attention to the number of Ohio Governors who had
gone on the Presidency, the office of Chief Justice, high cabinet posts and the U.S. Senate. ―Why
then,‖ asked Warrington, ―should we not give such men a voice … in the enactment of our
laws?‖ It was a compelling speech. His listeners elected him to the Presidency of the State Bar
the next day, and the people approved the amendment he espoused at the election in the next
year.
A lengthy and sometimes shrill discussion brought the convention to a close. At issue was a
motion to direct the Executive committee to seek another site for the 1903 annual meeting. In
1901 the convention had adjourned one day earlier than planned, and the manager of the Hotel
Victory (to guard against such a contingency in 1902) therefore scheduled a convention of hay
and feed dealers during the bar meeting. Unfortunately, more than 300 lawyers and their family
members arrived for the session. The facilities of the hotel were severely taxed and waits of up to
one hour for dining room seats were the order of the day. Worse, the hotel refused to honor the
rates which had been advertised in the advance publicity. The debate brought out the fact that no
contract on rates had been made for 1902 by the Executive Committee, and the dove of peace
descended when the manager agreed to provide rooms at $2 a day for double occupancy in 1903,
provided the delegates remained for 2 days. The motion to require the Executive Committee to
seek another location was therefore tabled and the delegates dispersed.
The Spectre of the Red Flag
As agreed the previous year, the 24th annual Meeting was held in the Hotel Victory at Put-inBay.
Recognizing the transition of America from a sparsely populated land devoted to agricultural
pursuits to a dynamic and rapidly developing industrial land, President John W. Warrington
called upon the lawyers to develop new ideas. In particular, he asserted that the administration of
justice could be improved to meet twentieth century standards, if the lawyers of the land devoted
their collective energy to the task. He proposed that, in advance of each Association Meeting,
subjects for discussion be selected and communicated to the members with the request that they
study them. Speakers would be assigned for each topic and, in the end of each speech, a general
discussion would take place. Conclusions would be drawn from these discussions which,
according to President Warrington, would be helpful to the judges in making decisions that
would enable the law to keep pace with the times.
Warrington voiced the complaint, ―The press and some of the magazines teem with various
phases of the doctrine of socialism.‖ The reading public rarely took the time to study the subject
of socialism, and consequently Warrington thought that it was influenced disproportionately by
the high-sounding phrases of the writers. It was Warrington‘s opinion that his suggestion for
advance preparation, speeches and discussions would serve to educate the public as well as the
bench and the bar, and thus deter the drive for government ownership.
The President expressed particular concern over an article in the Harvard Law Review in
which the author alluded to the great anthracite coal strike and said that the intelligent observer
of public affairs ought not to be surprised to see as one of the more remote consequences of that
strike an increase of the receptivity of the public mind to the principles of socialism. The author
of the article then endeavored to establish a constitutional basis for the federal government to
appropriate various inter-state agencies such as railroads, telegraph lines and similar businesses.
President Warrington mentioned the sudden and rapid development of the Commerce Clause
of the Constitution as another source of danger to the private enterprise system. He said, ―If any
of the great men who took part in formulating it (the Commerce Clause) thought that the power
created by the clause would ever expand into its present proportions, they left no record of such
foresight.‖ Referring to the growing line of cases that tended to expand the power of government
over private property, Warrington asked the question, ―Shall the bar associations sit by supinely
and see these transformations all take place, without any expression of opinion whatever?‖
The President concluded his address with a report on certain legislative activities in Ohio.
Chief among them was the enactment of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Ohio was now one of
twenty states which had adopted the uniform act. The other ―epochal reform‖ (as Warrington
described it) was the adoption of a new municipal code. Finally, President Warrington said, on
the subject of debate on public issues, ―If this spirit of intellectual enterprise could be created and
this initiative achieved, the Bar Association would no longer be a follower, it would be a leader,
in both thought and expression, upon questions of vital concern to us all, and at the same time an
appropriate and effective aid to the administration of justice!‖
To John A. Shauck and Henry J. Booth of Columbus and James J. Clark of Canton was
assigned the task of writing a belated memorial for the Ohio State Bar Association‘s most
illustrious member, William McKinley. Because they had been McKinley‘s personal friends, the
authors prepared a tribute that was both sympathetic and poignant, and graphically portrayed his
rise to the highest office in the land, and the skill with which he executed that office.
The McKinley memorial also touched upon the theme that President Warrington advocated.
The fact that the death of President McKinley was due to the teaching of anarchists was clearly
apparent. This, according to the scrivener of the memorial, raised a question for consideration by
the Association: whether our national life is not as worthy of the protection of the laws as the life
of an individual or his property or his reputation. The author is firmly believed that it was, and
decried the fact that in the two years since the assassination, Congress had done nothing to deter
the advocacy of anarchy.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee joined the chorus for debate of
public issues. An amendment to the Ohio Constitution was pending before the voters which
would grant to the Governor the right to veto acts of the Legislature. The Committee proposed
that the issue be debated during the convention. When the debate started, President Warrington
vacated the chair and led the argument in opposition to the amendment as drafted. He said that at
the 1902 session of the Legislature, he and Andrew Squire of Cleveland had been requested to
prepare a constitutional amendment resolution vesting the veto power in the Governor. They
went to Columbus and worked diligently to draft an amendment that included the best features of
the veto provision of the constitutions of the several states of the Union. The resolution which
Squire and Warrington drafted was introduced, and they assumed that it had been passed by both
houses of the Legislature. Now, a year later, Warrington discovered that an entirely different
measure had been passed. This new measure vested the veto power in the Governor, but it
provided that to override the veto a two-thirds majority would be required in each house and the
vote to override would have to be not less than the vote by which the measure passed in the first
instance. It also provided that the Governor could veto one or more sections in any bill. After an
extended debate, further consideration of the Committee‘s recommendation was indefinitely
postponed.
Here was an example of what Judge Warrington had been talking about in his annual address.
The veto power issue was a topic of major concern in 1903. The Bar Association, after
discussing it at length, failed to take a position. The people approved the controversial
amendment in the fall election, and it remained in the Constitution until 1912 when a new
amendment, devoid of the section veto right and the obscure override requirement, was adopted
by the people.
The Report for the Year 1903 contains a number of interesting items. For the first time a lit of
all local bar associations was published, together with names of the president and secretary of
each. Also listed were the thirty counties of Ohio that had no bar associations. Among the county
officers listed was Miss Florence Cornice, who was the acting President of the Seneca County
group.
The Courts and the Law
President H. J. Booth of Columbus entitled his 1904 address to the Association, ―The Courts
of Ohio‖, and recalled that none of his predecessors in office had had the temerity to undertake a
discussion of this vital subject. Booth chortled that in choosing his title he was mindful that,
while the Constitution and laws of Ohio gave judges the last word, that privilege was definitely
not accorded them by the Association‘s Constitution.
Booth‘s first concern was the matter of judicial salaries. He said that it was an axiom, the truth
of which was accepted everywhere but in the legislature, that the importance of the position of a
judge should command the highest of public salaries. Through the efforts of the Ohio State Bar
Association, the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court had been increased to $6,000 in
1900 and $6,500 in 1902. Booth pointed out that prior to 1900 there had been no increase for
thirty-three years. Ohio still lagged far behind New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where
the pay was $10,000 or more per year. The length of the term of the Supreme Court was a matter
of concern to the President, who advocated that it be lengthened to twelve years (a bill to
accomplish this goal was later defeated in the Legislature).
On the subject of judicial selection Booth reviewed the various methods in vogue in England
and the United States. He noted that the former had had some horrible examples under the
appointive system such as John Kellyng, who fined jurors who failed to convict religious
dissenters, and also the infamous Lord Jeffries, the archetype of the ―hanging judge.‖ The
President concluded that Ohio‘s elective system served the state well.
Booth then entered upon an exhaustive discussion of mob rule and its cause and effect. Ohio
had been the scene of a number of lynchings perpetrated by vicious mobs led or instigated in
some instances by supposedly exemplary citizens, and one such case described by Booth was the
riot of 1884 in Cincinnati. In a first degree murder trial before Judge Samuel R. Matthews, the
jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and the judge immediately sentenced the
defendant to the maximum of twenty years imprisonment and said that in his opinion the verdict
was an outrage. The following evening a public meeting was called in the Music Hall, and was
addressed by a number of leading citizens who exhorted the crowd by saying that the case was a
miscarriage of justice. It was alleged that many of these leaders always found an excuse when
they were called for jury duty. Having delivered their exhortations the civic leaders retired, and
the mob, armed with sledge hammers and torches, attacked and destroyed the court house. One
of the little known results of their depredations was the destruction of the file of the only case in
the Ohio courts in which Abraham Lincoln had participated as a lawyer. Similar events took
place in Columbus and in Washington Court House but, in each instance, although good citizens
may have been involved at the outset, Booth asserted that it was the lawless element which took
over and committed the outrages.
With the concern today over the imposition of the death penalty for capital crimes, some of
President Booth‘s statements seem pertinent. He said that in those states where death was the
penalty for the most flagrant assaults, such crimes were much more frequent than in those where
the penalty was imprisonment. Also, states which had the most capital crimes on the statue books
also led in number of crimes actually committed and, in proportion to population, had the most
lynchings.
President Booth said that the remedy for this vestige of barbarism was education: educating
the citizen on his true relation to the state; and furnishing him with accurate information
concerning crime and punishment. It would also be necessary to punish, promptly and
rigorously, all rioters and all public officials who willfully failed to prevent mob violence.
Finally, Booth said, ―The judge must gauge his duty by his oath and ascertain the law from the
Constitution, the statutes and the precedents, and not by keeping his ear to the ground … The
glory of our state will indeed be lost, the honor of our courts forever tarnished and the
administration of justice become indeed a mockery when our courts go to Euclid Avenue or
Commercial Street, Cleveland, for a definition of reasonable doubt; to Grandon Road or
Bucktown, Cincinnati, for learning the law of evidence; to the tenderloin district of Toledo for a
definition of prejudicial error; to the Skinner Gang of Springfield for an interpretation of the
statute relating to homicide; or to Broad Street or the Bad Lands of Columbus for inspiration
concerning the right of trial by jury.‖
The convention of 1904 was noteworthy for the fact that its program included several
speeches on what are now called ―bread and butter‖ topics. Great concern had been expressed by
lawyers for many years over the reporting of cases in the Supreme Court. To clarify this subject
the Association called upon E. O. Randall, the Reporter of the Supreme Court, to present a paper.
Mr. Randall discussed the statutory provisions for the reports of the Supreme Court cases, the
method of preparing them, and the reasons who there was no official publication of lower court
cases. He added a few words of admonition concerning the need for more care in proof-reading
briefs. He said that under his regime the number of reports had increased to two per year. The
price remained by statute at $1.50 a volume.
A novel but timely ―first‖ added interest to the 25th Annual Meeting. A burning issue in the
early years of the twentieth century, just as it is in Cleveland in the latter years, was the question
of municipal ownership of utilities. To promote better understanding of this controversial issue
the Association scheduled a formal debate on the subject. The participants were David F. Pugh
of Columbus for the affirmative and Joseph Wilby of Cincinnati for the negative. Each of the
debaters researched his subject thoroughly, and each spiced his remarks with horrible examples
of the consequences if his opponent‘s position were to prevail. An excerpt from the argument of
the proponent of municipal ownership: ―The dominant purpose of street railway companies is to
extort from the necessities of the people the largest revenues which the latter can be forced to
pay. It is natural and inevitable for such corporations to debauch and plunder a modern
municipality as it was for the robber barons to plunder and levy tribute upon the rich cities of
medieval Europe. Although swords and spears are no longer resorted to in this kind of warfare,
the weapons now employed for wholesale robbery are much more effective.‖ Not to be outdone,
the opponent Mr. Wilby offered a pertinent quotation, ―It is a general law of human society,
established by long and unvarying experience, that whenever government undertakes business
management and conducts enterprises for gain, its character is perverted, its proper purposes are
obscured and confounded, the commercial spirit takes the place of the spirit of statesmanship,
and the way is open for corruption.‖
Although the Chairman of the Admissions Committee was not present to make a report, it was
obvious that he and his committee had had a busy year. The Secretary, W. H. A. Read,
announced the names of the applicants for election or reinstatement. In all, there were fifty-seven
new members to be added to the roster, which Mr. Read said would bring it to the highest figure
in the history of the Ohio State Bar Association. A reading of the names of the new members
discloses many which are still known in Ohio legal circles. Among them were: John M. Cole of
Springfield; William B. Woods of Garretsville, later the Referee in Bankruptcy in Cleveland;
Harry M. Hoffheimer of Cincinnati; A. T. Seymour of Columbus; and Frederick L. Taft of
Cleveland, a future President of the Association.
The report of the Committee on Nominations brought an unexpected development. The
nominees were James O. Troup of Bowling Green (Chairman of the Executive Committee) for
President; W. H. A. Read of Toledo for Secretary; and C. R. Gilmore of Dayton for Treasurer.
When the motion for adoption of the report and election of the nominees was put, Mr. Read took
the floor to affirm his faith in, and love for the Association, but he felt compelled to decline the
honor because of the press of family and business. He then suggested that the place be given to a
younger man. The membership took Read at his word and elected instead a man who had been
admitted to membership only two days previously, Edward B. McCarter of Columbus.
The First Quarter-Century
The idea conceived by Judge Ranney and his cohorts in Cleveland in 1880 had now matured
and the organization which came into being in that year was ready for its silver anniversary. The
event was commemorated at the Annual Convention at Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay on July 11
through 14, 1905.
Having labored long in the Ohio State Bar Association, President Troup was eminently well
qualified to recount the accomplishments of the first twenty-five years. Article II of the
Constitution of the Ohio State Bar Association sets forth that among the Association‘s purposes
are the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of reform in the law, and the
facilitation of the administration of justice. A review of the first twenty-five years showed how
closely the Association had adhered to those objectives, and what significant benefits it had
achieved for the people of Ohio. The establishment of the Circuit Courts had lightened the
workload of the Supreme Court, and enabled every litigant to receive an expeditious and
impartial review of his case. The increase in the training period for law students and the uniform
bar examination helped assure better-educated lawyers to serve the people. The codification of
criminal, domestic relations, and negotiable instruments laws, and the adoption of the municipal
code, were all accomplished through the efforts of the Ohio State Bar Association. Improvement
in the method of selecting jurors, and the elimination of loopholes which enabled many citizens
to avoid jury service, had insured a higher caliber of jurors. The Association had worked
diligently for the laws which granted veto power to the governor and strengthened the electoral
procedures. Finally, increases in the salaries of the Supreme Court judges, and the construction
of the new Judicial Annex to the state house to provide quarters for the Supreme Court, were
perhaps the most important jewels in the crown of the Association‘s achievements.
Troup‘s review of the Association‘s activities included a reference to the annual meetings. He
reported the demise of the banquet which, he said, was characterized by ―mouldy wit, and the
flowing bowl which sometimes flowed too freely.‖ Its place on the program had been taken by
musical entertainment of a high order, which seemed to entice more of the wives and daughters
of the members to attend, and this in turn elevated the general tone of the conventions.
Like many of his predecessors, President Troup expressed concern over the small percentage
of the total Ohio lawyer population who were members of the Association. Although the
membership was at an all time high of 600, it still represented only about 10% of the lawyers in
the state. Of 100 common pleas judges, only forty-two had seen fit to join the Association. The
record of the probate judges was worse, since only seven of eighty-eight were members. This, of
course, stemmed partly from the fact that many of them were not lawyers and therefore were not
eligible for membership.
Looking to the future, the President suggested that a worthwhile project for the attention of
the state bar would be to take the necessary steps to obtain a new constitution for Ohio.
Troup next directed the attention of the assembled attorneys to the Probate Courts of the state,
the judges of which then did not need to be lawyers. Indeed, according to Troup, in some
counties it was impossible to elect an attorney to the office of probate judge. He cited another
county which for more than a generation had elected a physician as probate judge, and
speculated as to whether that county might not have a surplus of lunatics that would require the
judge to be a physician.
The President concluded by saying that the Association, by its earnest, intelligent and
conservative course, had won the confidence of the people and of all departments of state
government.
The new Secretary, Edward B. McCarter, submitted his first report, in which he informed the
membership that the Association now had headquarters in Columbus. For several years, the
excess volumes of the reports of the Association‘s proceedings had been stored on a shelf in the
Supreme Court Library, and the Association‘s files were kept in a trunk purchased for $4 during
the previous administration. These facilities had proved to be inadequate, and McCarter
announced that through the courtesy of E. Howard Jilhry, Librarian and Marshall of the Supreme
Court, he had obtained (on a temporary basis) a room off the Court‘s library. Now, the
Association‘s committees would have a meeting place, and the records would be easily
accessible.
The Treasurer‘s Report showed a total income of $1,145.15 for dues and reinstatements, and a
cash balance of $248.42 after payment of expenses. No explanation was offered as to what
member got in for 15 cents. That the Treasurer‘s work met with general approbation is proven by
the motion of Mr. Bannon of Portsmouth, that the Treasurer be paid a salary of $100, plus $25
for clerical help. The motion carried.
Among the new members were: John A. Cline of Cleveland, who would be the Association
President twenty years later; J. T. Holmes, Jr., the nephew of the first secretary and the President
in 1889; Lowry F. Sater of Columbus; Daniel W. Iddings of Dayton, who would be President in
1920; Edward L. Pease of Columbus; John T. Harrington of Youngstown; and D. C.
Westenhaver of Cleveland, a future federal judge.
In the early years the members of the Ohio State Bar Association showed a preoccupation
with death. Each copy of the annual reports contained a ―Mortuary List,‖ in which was noted the
name, date of joining, date of death and home town of each deceased member. In addition,
extended memorial addresses were delivered at the convention for lawyers who had died during
the preceding year. This preoccupation was in no way indicative of morbidity, but rather was an
expression of a desire to honor and memorialize for posterity the early leaders of the bar. And to
those who have a taste for history these memorials paint an accurate and personalized story of
the growth of Ohio from the days of the Northwest Territory down to the early twentieth century.
The man most responsible for this feature of the reports was Stephen R. Harris of Bucyrus, who
served as the 14th President of the Association. He died in his 81st year, and to him was
accorded the honor of being the subject of the first picture to appear in the reports of the Ohio
State Bar Association.
The Association in the Progressive Era
Hotel Victory at Put-in-Bay was again the mecca for the bar of Ohio as the lawyers gathered
for the Ohio State Bar Association‘s 27th Annual Meeting on July 10, 1906.
In 1906 Theodore Roosevelt was in the White House. His crusading activities reflected the
national mood, and President Edward Kibler of Newark noted that the country was experiencing
a great moral awakening. It took the form of a crusade against corruption in public office,
political tyranny, industrial extortion, corporate aggression and the misuse of trust and quasipublic funds. Kibler said that this popular reaction against public and private abuse and
lawlessness was similar to the reaction of the people of Virginia in an earlier day when they
propounded the Virginia Bill of Rights. Then, as now, the people were demanding strict justice,
honesty and integrity. Relating this situation to the law and the organized bar, Kibler said, ―It is
therefore proper for us at this time, if possible, to anticipate his demand and to inquire what can
be done or suggested by an association of representative lawyers so to improve the machinery of
the law that it may turn out a product more certain to be just and right and to deserve the
confidence of and respect of all right thinking people.‖
The President turned his wrath on the General Assembly, which he said ought to find (but
seldom did) the source and material of the rules it lays down in the fundamental principles of
morality. He decried the fact that the only constitutional requirement for membership in the
legislature was residence in the county or district. Kibler then firmly asserted, ―Statutory laws,
instead of surging upon us like a panic-breeding flood, should be comparatively so few in
number as to become the embodiment of the best judgment and moral sense of the people … A
session of the General Assembly, instead of producing a general feeling of apprehension, ought,
under more favorable conditions, to diffuse a sense of security …‖ He was blunt in describing
legislators: ―In no branch of business would such incompetence be tolerated.‖ Perhaps it should
be added that nearly forty years later a freshman legislator said after a few weeks of the session
that when he was practicing law in Jefferson County he could not understand how any group
could pass such bad laws, but after being there he did not understand how it passed as good laws
as it did.
The President turned to legal ethics which, he said, had received little consideration, although
the framers of the Constitution of the Ohio State Bar Association surely had that important
subject in mind when they used the words ―to uphold integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal
profession.‖ The preparation of a code of ethics by a carefully selected committee, and its
approval by the membership, would be a credit to the Association, and would contribute to the
efficiency of judicial administration, according to President Kibler.
Oratory was the order of the day at the Convention of 1906. An ex officio member of the
Association and a rising star in the political firmament, William Howard Taft, had accepted an
invitation tendered a year in advance to address the meeting. He prefaced his remarks with a
typical, self-deprecating remark, ―… if you will take [a person] as your speaker this afternoon
when about all the law he knows is forgotten, you must expect him to select some subject that is
rather easier to him than sound law.‖ His subject was the Panama Canal, and one cannot read his
address without being greatly impressed with the depth and breadth of his knowledge of the
history of the project, the engineering problems, the public health risks, the estimated shipping
tonnage, and the climatic conditions involved in the monumental task of joining the two great
oceans. In discussing estimated tonnage Taft pointed out that the Suez Canal began with about
five million tons per year and increased to fourteen million tons. Using that as a yard stick, he
estimated that the Panama Canal would carry fifty million tons in the year 2000. He then said, ―I
think we can readily postpone anxiety therefore as to its capacity for the consideration of our
grandchildren.‖
The final oratorical treat was a debate between Judge Aaron A. Ferris of Cincinnati and Judge
Alexander Hadden of Cleveland. The issue was, ―Can the accumulation of great wealth be
regulated by taxation?‖ Ferris‘ affirmative position was illuminated by a description of the
personal wealth of a prominent Ohioan, John D. Rockefeller. Quoting from an article in the New
York World, Ferris said that in 1855 the Standard Oil tycoon had not a penny, but by 1905 he had
accumulated $550,000,000. Ferris contended that the current moral indignation of the people was
traceable for the most part to the insane rush to accumulate great wealth. He concluded that it
was the duty of the state to take steps promptly to tax the great fortunes in order to promote the
general welfare.
In his response, Judge Hadden quoted the argument of Daniel Webster in McCulloch v.
Maryland, in which he said, ―an unlimited power to tax involves necessarily a power to destroy
because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can beat taxation … If the
states may tax, they have no limit but their discretion …‖ Chief Justice John Marshall used some
of this language in his opinion in the case and added, ―… that the power to destroy may defeat
and render useless the power to create … are propositions not to be denied.‖ Abuse of the power
of taxation could thus destroy initiative and render nugatory the American dream that any
individual by hard work and thrift can achieve success.
Turning to the routine matters of the Convention, the Admissions Committee reported that it,
aided by a special committee consisting of Smith A. Bennett and Past President Henry J. Booth,
and by Secretary Edward B. McCarter, performed a Herculean task and produced 125 new
members and one reinstatement. The results of the effort were impressive in both quantity and
quality. Heading the list of new members was Sherman Arter of Cleveland, whose surname still
graces the style of one of Cleveland‘s largest firms. Next came Newton D. Baker, the founder of
another of Clevelands‘ largest firms. Baker was to become Mayor of Cleveland, and Secretary of
War in Woodrow Wilson‘s cabinet. Other prominent names in the list were: Alfred Bettman of
Cincinnati; T. H. Bushnell, Alfred Clum, George B. Harris and Charles P. Hine, all of Cleveland;
Ralph D. Cole of Findlay; Allen J. Seney of Toledo; Edward S. Matthias of Van Wert; and
Carmi A. Thompson of Ironton. Clum served for many years as chief counsel in the Cleveland
law department. His brother captured Geronimo, the feared Navaho Chief who terrorized the
Southwest for years. George B. Harris would be the President of the Association in 1922, and a
common pleas judge. Charles P. Hine was a founding member of another large Cleveland law
firm. Carmi A. Thompson became prominent in Republic politics and served as Governor
General of the Philippine Islands. Matthias was to become a member of the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Treasurer‘s report revealed that the $2 annual dues apparently still presented a financial
burden to some lawyers. Fourteen erstwhile members were suspended for nonpayment. Six
members resigned and eight died, leaving a total membership of 615 before the admission of the
1906 bumper crop.
An interesting letter from H. R. Probusco of Cincinnati, a long time member of the
Association, was read to the Association. Probusco described his visit to a locked, but otherwise
unattended and unkempt cemetery in Richmond, Virginia, where in was buried Chief Justice
John Marshall. Probusco proposed the appointment of a committee of the Ohio State Bar
Association to inquire into the condition of the grave and formulate a plan for raising funds for
the erection of a mausoleum or monument. Mr. Probusco was not only a thoughtful man but was
also extremely astute, as shown by the postscript to his letter in which he expressly disavowed
any desire to be appointed to the committee—he well knew the unwritten rule that proposers
frequently are appointed as disposers. Nevertheless his suggestion, in modified form, was
incorporated into a resolution calling upon the American Bar Association to take action which he
had proposed.
In the United States 1907 was the year of the tercentenary of the establishment of the first
English colony at Jamestown, Virginia. In the Ohio State Bar Association it was the year of the
special committee—no less than seven had been formed to consider such diverse subjects as the
preparation of a code of legal ethics, banking legislation, taxation legislation, and four different
parts of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee‘s report for 196.
Today it is hard to believe that as late as 1907 the legal profession in Ohio had no written code
of ethics. When the President called on the grievance committee for a report, there was no
response. In previous years, when there was a response it was generally reported that no
complaints had been received. It was apparently this lack of action which motivated Ross W.
Funck of Wooster to move that the President appoint a committee to draft a code of legal ethics
to be submitted to the next annual meeting.
Allegations are sometimes made that the organized bar looks out only for the welfare of its
own members, or that its legislative efforts are self-serving, but the record readily refutes such
charges. An example was the action instituted at the 1907 meeting, when a committee was
appointed to secure the enactment of a law creating a state banking department to have
supervision and general control of all banks, savings banks and trust companies operating in
Ohio. Another example dealt with the tax laws of Ohio, which had long been a source of concern
to the people and to the Ohio State Bar Association. Papers had been presented and debates
conducted at previous conventions, but no conclusive decisions had been made. The author of
the banking resolution, Gilbert H. Stewart, offered another resolution to create a committee to
recommend a constitutional amendment giving the legislature greater authority to act in the field
of taxation, and to urge that body to enact such measures as would correct the evils of the present
system and equalize the burden of taxation. The resolution was adopted and the president
appointed a committee consisting of Atlee Pomerene of Canton as chairman, and Edgar B.
Kinkead of Columbus, S. S. Wheeler of Lima, J. J. Alread of Greenville, and Ellis G. Kinkead of
Cincinnati as members.
The secretary reported that he had received an inquiry from the Indiana State Bar Association
concerning the possibility of holding a joint meeting in 1908 at Put-in-Bay. Concern was
expressed over who would pay the cost of such a meeting and whether each group would hold
separate sessions to transact its own business matters. After these questions were answered
satisfactorily, it was decided to tender an official invitation to the Indiana group to meet with the
Ohio State Bar Association for their convention in 1908. The idea died aborning because, upon
receipt of the invitation, the secretary of the Indiana State Bar Association sent a telegram to
Secretary McCarter stating that a majority of the Indiana lawyers did not wish to hold a meeting
outside of their own state.
Another development was the arrangement by Manager McCreary of the Hotel Victory for the
taking of a group picture on the front porch of the hotel. All members assembled there
immediately after the adjournment of the July 10 session.
The increased activity of the Association, as well as the splendid contributions made by the
Secretary, were evidenced by the adoption of a motion by Simeon M. Johnson to double the
Secretary‘s salary. The new stipend of $200 per annum represented about 12% of the
Association‘s total expenses.
John C. Hale of Cleveland was President in 1907. His address was largely a reaffirmance of
proposals for reform advocated by his predecessors, but he did join the popular hue and cry for
more stringent control over the exercise of corporate power. He also called for opposition to a
proposed statute authorizing county auditors to hire what he called ―tax inquisitors.‖ These
individuals, operating under statutes that had recently been declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court of Ohio, sought out property which was not listed for taxation and then reported
their findings to the auditor, receiving a fee for their efforts. Hale termed the practice ―vicious,‖
and argued that the auditors already had the power to hire deputies who could and should do this
work.
One of the pet projects of reformers of that period was the initiative and referendum. President
Edward Kibler had denounced the idea during his administration. A debate was held at the 1907
meeting, with Atlee Pomerene of Canton arguing the affirmative, and E. B. Kinkead of
Columbus opposing the initiative and referendum. Pomerene‘s argument was that the measure
would truly establish a government by the people. His opponent contended that the United States
had grown to be the greatest nation on each, that it was the home of eighty million people and
that it had prospered without its pernicious idea which was really sponsored by dangerous
radicals.
Anyone who remembers the dignified, courtly Simeon M. Johnson who, impeccably clad in
his morning coat and striped trousers, was a fixture at state bar meetings during the entire first
half of the 20th century, will not be surprised at the gracious resolution offered by him at the
close of the 1907 convention. He said, ―I move that the thanks of this Association be tendered to
the president, the Honorable John C. Hale, for the able and impartial manner in which he has
presided over this Association.‖ With the adoption of that resolution and a similar
complimentary one for the musicians who supplied the entertainment, the 1907 meeting slipped
into history.
***
The 1908 meeting was convened by C. B. Heiserman of Urbana, a member of the Executive
Committee, who described 1908 as, ―the year of the accident.‖ The list of absentees read like a
regimental roll call after a battle. The President, Thomas B. Paxton of Cincinnati, had made other
plans for the summer and declined the honor of addressing his peers. I. J. Mullins of Salem,
perennial chairman of the Executive Committee, whose duty it was to convene the meeting, had
resigned because of illness. Mullins was succeeded by Judge C. O. Hunter of Columbus who,
according to Secretary McCarter, had worked so hard to organize the 29th Annual Meeting that
he, too, had joined the casualty list, and illness thus prevented him from coming to Put-in-Bay.
To fill the void created by the unprecedented wave of absenteeism, the Executive Committee
called on the senior among the ten District Vice Presidents, D. A. Hollingsworth of Cadiz, to
deliver the presidential address. It was a fitting choice. Hollingsworth was one of the original
members of the Association, and had served on the Executive Committee which adopted the
Association‘s first set of by-laws in September, 1881. His speech showed him to be a man of
complete candor, conscience and courage. He opened his remarks by frankly stating that he
would eschew the beaten path of self-praise and glorification of the bench and bar which marked
the addresses given at former meetings, and unburden himself of some criticisms he believed
were deserved.
Hollingsworth expressed his dismay over the idea that it was beneath the dignity of lawyers
and judges to take part in party politics. In dissenting from such notions of professional dignity
Hollingsworth said, ―Law and the science of statecraft naturally go hand in hand and the lawyer
who fails to study deeply the science of government, or the statesman … who fails in formative
legislation to lay his lines deep in the foundations of the law, will fail in is career.‖ He pointed to
two distinguished members of the Association, William McKinley and William H. Taft, as
shining examples of lawyers who recognized and carried out their civic responsibilities.
Referring to McKinley, Hollingsworth recalled the blast leveled against him by Peter Laubie in
1900, and said ―… instead of the ungracious abuse heaped upon him and his administration … in
one of our annual addresses, he might have been a dignified critic of the great acts of the
government which have placed the American Republic in the fore rank of all nations.‖
Like many who preceded him, Hollingsworth wondered why so many of the states‘ leading
judges and lawyers showed no interest in the Bar Association, or in its meetings, discussions or
results. He suggested that the compact ranks of organized labor were object lessons well worth
study and imitation by the bar.
The tendency toward split decisions in both the federal and state Supreme Courts was
alarming to Hollingsworth. He noted that in 1 Ohio State reports, seventy reported cases covered
703 pages and only eleven of those opinions were by a divided court. But in 74 Ohio State
reports, the then current volume, thirty-eight cases with formal opinions were included, and
twenty-three of them were decided by a divided court. This situation, he thought, created
uncertainty in the minds of lawyers and intelligent clients, and that such uncertainty bread
distrust of the administration of the law in general.
The scintilla rule, which had been the subject of vigorous discussion at bar meetings for many
years, attracted the attention of acting President Hollingsworth. He viewed those debates as part
of the effort to ―sap and undermine‖ the jury system, insofar as abolition of the rule would take
matters from the jury. Hollingsworth recalled the speech of President Edward Kibler in 1905, in
which Kibler predicted that the rule was on its way to ultimate extinction and would be gone as
soon as common pleas judges acquired the courage to take from the jury those actions that were
without merit. Hollingsworth decried this prediction with the mot, ―now in the name of all the
sharp quillets of the law at once, upon what meat doth this our legal Caesar feed, that he has
grown so sure in prophecy?‖
Hollingsworth concluded by reciting the constitutional provision relative to the purposes of
the Association, namely, the cultivation of cordial intercourse among the members of the bar.
The annual convention was a proper place to carry out that provision he said, and ―It is pleasant
to meet here, judge and lawyer, on an equality. It is good, in fact, to occasionally quit thinking.‖
The list of new members for 1908 contained many well-known names. Cincinnati supplied
twenty-nine of the new members, more than any other city in the state. President Paxton may not
have shown up at the convention, but he obviously preached the gospel of the Ohio State Bar
Association in his home town. New members from the Queen City included Province M. Pogue,
Thomas L. Pogue, O. J. Renner, Philip Renner and Murray Seasongood. Province M. Pogue was
president of the Association in 1925, and the Pogue name is still carried in one of Cincinnati‘s
leading firms. The Renner family was prominent in Hamilton County Republican circles for
many years. Seasongood was a leader of the local Charterite Party, and became a nationally
renowned expert on municipal law. Cleveland supplied twenty-three new members, including:
William H. Boyd, whose firm represented O. P. and M. J. Van Sweringen, the legendary brothers
who developed Shaker Heights as a model suburb; Walter D. Meals and Manual Levine, who
became Court of Appeals judges; A. G. Newcomb, who served on the common pleas bench; and
Welles K. Stanley, who achieved prominence representing employers in labor matters.
The name of the Ohio State Bar Association‘s greatest benefactor was included in the 1908
list. George W. Ritter of Sandusky joined in that year. Later his moved to Toledo. It was he who
conceived the idea of the Ohio Legal Center, and it was his generous gift fifty-one years later
which made possible the construction of the center on the campus of The Ohio State University.
The report of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee graphically portrayed
the loose-knit character of the Ohio State Bar Association in its early days. Chairman A. D.
Follett noted that at the request of his committee four groups were appointed by President Hale
to take the necessary steps to draft bills for introduction in the Legislature and to secure their
enactment into law. Follett had to report that, unfortunately, he could find no evidence that any
one of these groups had met. No bills had been prepared, and all of the efforts of the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee had gone for naught.
The continuing efforts of the Committee on Legal Education to raise the standards for
admission to the bar were reflected in a comprehensive proposal for submission to the Supreme
Court. The Committee‘s proposal for submission to the Supreme Court. The Committee‘s draft
was designed, among other things, to establish definite requirements for law schools. Their
libraries were to be open six days a week and eight hours a day, and were to contain: the reports
of the highest courts in Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Indiana and either Illinois or Michigan;
the latest edition of the Ohio statutes; the U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court of Appeals
reports; a standard textbook on each of the required courses; and a general digest. The law school
curriculum would be required to cover three years, during which 1,200 lectures or recitation
periods of forth minutes each were to be given on the following subjects: real and personal
property; torts; contracts; evidence; pleading; partnership; bailments; negotiable instruments;
agency; suretyship; domestic relations; wills; corporations; equity; criminal law; constitutional
law; and legal ethics. Examinations were to be held in each subject, and the results filed with the
Supreme Court. A high school diploma or its equivalent was to be a prerequisite for entering
upon the study of law.
One of the men who joined the Association at the 1908 meeting wasted no time in getting into
the swing of things. No sooner had the motion to admit him been adopted, than Eugene
Rheinfrank took the floor to read a resolution signed by ninety members of the Lucas County Bar
calling for the nomination of judges of all courts of Ohio by non-partisan ballot. The resolution
further called for the use of all honorable means to secure passage of a measure to that end by the
next legislature, and that the support of such a measure by the Ohio State Bar Association be
solicited. Whether because of the brashness of the new member or the radical nature of the
proposal, the resolution was tabled; but Rheinfrank and several of his Toledo cohorts were able
to have the resolution lifted from the table, and referred to the Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee with instructions to report at the next Association meeting.
The 29th Annual Meeting boasted a surprising event. Today‘s lawyers (in limited numbers, of
course) content themselves with occasional games of golf or tennis at the bar conventions, but
their counterparts in 1908 were perhaps more rugged. One of their numbers, Benton S.
Oppenheimer, was appointed master of ceremonies of the athletic events. He addressed the
convention on this subject and invited all members to take part in a field day, to be held on the
campus immediately following the adjournment of the afternoon session. What the athletic
events were, and who won them and what were their times and whether there were any
coronaries, are clouded in anonymity. The only information available on this athletic contest is
an item of $53.30 in the Treasurer‘s Report for 1909, paid to Benton S. Oppenheimer for
expenses.
Advocates of the Missouri Plan for judicial selection and tenure will be interested in two
matters which came before the 1908 meeting. The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee had, for several years, advocated longer terms for Supreme Court judges. When the
Committee sought Association approval of this proposal, an amendment was offered calling for
the election of judges of all courts of record for indefinite terms, subject only to recall at stated
intervals. The amendment was defeated, but the seed was planted. The next recommendation was
that the Ohio Constitution be amended to provide for the appointment of all judges by the
Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate with their tenure of office to be for a fixed
term or during good behavior. This recommendation was referred to the Committee on motion of
Mr. Rheinfrank, with the request that it be considered along with his resolution for non-partisan
nomination of judges.
***
Innovation was the hallmark of the 30th Annual Meeting. For the first time, an hour-by-hour
advance program of the meeting was issued. Another first was the scheduling of a mock trial by
lawyers‘ wives, with Mrs. L. C. Laylin of Columbus designated to serve a judge (the record is
silent on the trial‘s progress and conclusion). Another innovative feature of the 1909 meeting
was the inclusion in the report of the names of all the members and guests in attendance. There
were 246 persons participating in the festivities, and at least one romance blossomed on the
lovely Lake Erie island. The name of Miss Fannie Davis of Columbus followed immediately
after that of George B. Harris of Cleveland, and she later married Judge Harris. She is alive, well
and spiritedly at this writing.
When the 30th Annual Meeting was called to order, the Chairman of the Executive
Committee, C. O. Hunter of Columbus, informed the very few who were present that
transportation problems prevented most of the conventioneers from arriving on time, and that the
President‘s address would be postponed until the evening session.
Innovation, too, marked the annual address of President A. D. Follett—no mention was made
by him of any legislative or constitutional issues in which the Bar Association was interested;
neither was there any progress report on bar activities nor recommendations for the future.
Instead, the President delivered a scholarly talk entitled, ―A Progressive Judiciary,‖ in which he
generally approved the doctrine of stare decisis but tempered his approval with the argument that
the law must adjust to changing conditions.
The treasurer‘s report revealed that a commitment made at the 1906 convention had been met.
The sum of $100 pledged to the fund being raised for the construction of a monument in honor of
Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry‘s victory was paid. Thus, the lawyers of Ohio may be
rightfully proud when they view the impressive marble shaft which dominates the Lake Erie
Islands, since their Association helped to make that monument a reality.
The dedication of the Secretary, Edward B. McCarter, to his work is revealed in the
Treasurer‘s report. At the 1908 meeting, McCarter‘s salary had been increased to $400 per year,
but over his strenuous objection. Evidently, his objection was sincere for he only accepted $100
for his services which included: editing and supervising the preparation and printing of the
annual reports; mailing them to all members of the Association and to many universities,
libraries and most of the forty-three state bar associations; and mailing a supply of membership
applications to Association members, along with a letter urging them to strive to increase the
membership. Clearly, the Association was getting a bargain.
New members in 1909 included: Gilbert Bettman of Cincinnati, who would become the
Attorney General of Ohio; Frank F. Dinsmore of Cincinnati; Freeman T. Eagleson of
Cambridge; L. B. Fauver of Elyria; J. W. Peck of Cincinnati; George W. Rightmire of
Columbus, who would become President of The Ohio State University; and Amos Burt
Thompson and Walter L. Flory, both of Cleveland, who joined together to found what is today
one of that city‘s largest law firms.
Judson Harmon, who had been President of the Association in 1897, now occupied the
Governor‘s office. He had been invited to address the convention, as had Congressman Samuel
W. McCall of Massachusetts, but the press of political business prevented each of them from
attending.
A speaker who did show up was James R. Garfield of Cleveland, the son of the late president.
The speech which Garfield delivered would be surprising to those who knew him as a
conservative corporation lawyer in his later years. His subject was ―Employers‘ Liability and
Compensation Laws.‖ He said that we must look at the subject of industrial accidents primarily
from the social standpoint rather than the legal standpoint, and then determine whether, under
present conditions, the laws and court decisions were right. He concluded that it was clear that
industry ought to bear the cost of accidents, without regard to the usual rules of negligence.
Garfield proposed legislation to carry out this principle, and urged the Bar Association to support
it. His words bore fruit in 1912, when the concept of workmen‘s compensation was voted into
the Ohio Constitution.
The subject of divorce law had been before the Association on many occasions, but the 1909
meeting offered a new approach. Walter G. Smith of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, citing the
Conference of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, described how that organization had
prepared and assisted in the enactment of numerous uniform state laws. He argued that the only
way to accomplish the simplification of divorce law was adoption of uniform act by all the
states. The Conference of Commissioners had developed such a uniform act, and Smith urged
acceptance of it.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee made several recommendations for
action. The committee urged that the terms of Supreme Court judges be lengthened, and a floor
amendment set the proposed terms at twelve years. The 1908 resolution of the Lucas County Bar
Association, which called for non-partisan nominations for judges, found no favor at the 1909
meeting. The Committee offered a proposal to have all judges appointed by the governor with
the advice and consent of the Senate, but it stirred-up a hornet‘s nest. Consideration of the
measure was twice postponed and then, after being hotly debated both on its merits and on
postponing it again, it was referred to the Executive Committee with instructions to select men to
discuss it at the next meeting.
The most important development of the 30th Annual Meeting involved legal ethics. An
American Bar Association committee, composed of some of the country‘s leading lawyers, had
drafted a comprehensive code of conduct for attorneys. It had been adopted by the American Bar
Association as its Canons of Ethics on August 27, 1908, and copies had been forwarded to all
state bar associations. The Ohio State Bar Association, on the recommendation of the judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee, adopted the Canons on July 7, 1909, although it
did not act upon the oath to be taken by applicants for admission to the bar. As an additional step
in support of the Canons, a resolution was adopted urging the Supreme Court to amend its rules
on admissions to require that every applicant for admission to the bar file an affidavit with the
Court attesting that he had read the Canons, that he was familiar with them, and that he would
conform his professional conduct to them. To publicize the Canons and the work of the
Association, A. C. Buchanan of Piqua offered a motion that extra copies of the proceedings of
the Association for the year 1909, containing the Canons, be printed and bound in paperback,
and then distributed to every member of the bar of Ohio. The motion was adopted.
The aggravating delay in starting the 1909 meeting gave rise at its close to a requirement that
a committee be appointed to gather all material available on transportation and present it to the
Executive Committee for inclusion in the advance program for the next meeting. The 1909 train
and ferry schedules did not jibe, and many members had been stranded on the dock at Sandusky.
1909 and the 30th Annual Meeting hear the swan song for Hotel Victory and Put-in-Bay, as far
as the Ohio State Bar Association was concerned. The gracious old Victorian hostelry had hosted
the Association‘s conventions for twenty-two consecutive years. The record is silent as to the
specific reason for the break, but with membership at an all-time high of 844, and with the
problems of transportation from the mainland to the island, a change to larger and more
accessible quarters was indicated.
Pot-Shots from Cedar Point
The Ohio State Bar Association chose a new site for its 1910 convention—Cedar Point,
Ohio‘s famous summer resort on the shore of Lake Erie at Sandusky.
At the 31st Annual Meeting the President of the Association, Judge Jerome B. Burrows of
Painesville, showed himself to be an outspoken man and a rugged individualist. He had been
elected Mayor of Painesville, and when he learned that his salary would be $500 per year, he had
it reduced to $250. Burrows‘ presidential address took dead aim at state government. He asserted
that the executive and judicial departments had maintained a high standard of excellence, but this
was not true of the legislature. Burrows declared, ―The best that in truth can be said of the
General Assembly is that it has for some years past been composed of many respectable, capable
members, a fair sprinkling of gentlemen of no account, and a bargain assortment of politicians,
more or less unscrupulous.‖
He laid the blame on the doorstep of the party bosses. He suggested that the Association had
been able to raise the standards for admission to the bar, and that by proper cooperation it might
also raise the standard of qualification for members of the legislature. Although this idea has
never come to fruition, two of Burrows‘ other recommendations have, in part, become law.
These called for larger legislative districts, and an extension of the Senate terms to four years.
Burrows continued to hammer home his theme by emphasizing the superfluity and poor
quality of some of the laws enacted by the legislature. In particular, he argued that the so-called
progressive laws regulating hours of labor violated the laws of nature: ―Work, faithful work, is
the command of nature and the grand panacea for all ills, individual and social,‖ said burrows
and, ―If labor laws of the state and of voluntary organizations can dictate when, how long,, and
for whom a laborer may work, we might as well strike the word ‗liberty‘ from our Constitution,
as meaningless and obsolete.‖ Clearly, burrows believed in a stern work ethic.
Commenting on the growth of government, Burrows said, ―Forty years ago Ohio was divided
into farms and fully settled, and the conditions then required about the same governmental
agencies and laws as are required now. In these forty years, there has been a tenfold increase in
state offices and still larger increases in the expense of state government … If people can be
taught to govern themselves by being deprived of the privilege of doing so, then we are on the
right track and should pursue it to its legitimate end—government by bureaus appointed by the
state.‖ Noting that a state constitutional convention was in the offing, he called attention to the
fact that the framers of our first Constitution declared that a frequent recurrence to the
fundamental principles of civil government is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of
liberty.
The President reserved his most scathing denunciation for, ―… the habitual criminals and the
various grades of vagabonds … If these birds of prey could be gotten rid of or their number
substantially reduced, it would certainly be a consummation devoutly to be wished. They are all
afflicted by a common malady—an inveterate dislike of labor.‖ Burrows proposed a remedy:
―the whole gang should be put to work and kept at it until they get the habit and learn to
appreciate its blessings.‖
The first Association meeting at Cedar Point marked the last appearance of Edward B.
McCarter as Secretary of the Association. Having served in that capacity for six years he was
thoroughly familiar with the job and although ready to step-down he had several good
suggestions for his successor. First, he urged that the Secretary‘s salary be increased. Second,
since most other state bar associations charged $5 for dues, he felt that an increase to at least $3
would not keep anyone of the Association. Finally, he prodded the Committee on Admissions to
meet more frequently, in order to keep the work of the Association before the lawyers of the state
during the year.
The Treasurer‘s Report revealed an interesting statistic: the total cost of the 1909 convention
was $103.50. Seventy years later the cost of the 1979 meeting was $15,000. When the 1909
meeting adjourned, the membership had climbed to an all-time high of 842, but attritions caused
by death, suspensions, resignations, and the transfer of two Hamilton County judges, Howard
Hollister and John W. Warrington, from active to ex officio status, reduced the total to 793. The
efforts of the Admissions Committee (after being prodded by Secretary McCarter) more than
made up for the losses, since fifty-three new members were admitted and one former member
was reinstated. Among the new members was a man who achieved prominence in Ohio
politics—Frank B. Willis, who became Governor and later United States Senator, and who was
Ohio‘s favorite son candidate for President of the United States in 1928. Also joining in 1910
was Frank H. Ginn of Cleveland, one of the founders of the firm of Tolles, Hogsett, Ginn and
Morley, which through a merger became the firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
The disappointment of the conventioneers in having their principal speaker back-out in 1909
was repeated in 1910. Once again, it was a member of Congress who let them down. This
prompted President Burrows to say, ―Now, if you will allow me to make a suggestion, I think
Ohio has got within her borders men as competent to make as instructing and illuminating an
address as can be found in any other state, and I trust the Executive Committee next year will
employ, solicit and obtain consent of some person in Ohio, some lawyer in Ohio, who will
entertain us with an address and who will keep his word.‖ President Burrows was not given to
mincing words.
Burrows then announced the social program of the meeting, which consisted of a steamboat
ride around the Lake Erie islands, a musicale in the early evening, and a dance (which he said
would be for the younger members).
One action taken at the 31st Annual Meeting offers a striking contrast. Simeon M. Johnson
moved that the Association endorse a bill pending in the Congress to raise the salaries of federal
judges to the following levels:
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Justices of the Supreme Court
$18,000
17,000
Circuit Court of Appeals Judges 10,000
District Court Judges
9,000
In 1979, those salaries have attained the following levels:
Chief Justice
$75,000
Associate Justices 72,000
Circuit Court Judges
District Judges
57,000
54,500
The Convention adjourned with the election of Allen Andrews of Hamilton as President,
Gilbert H. Stewart, Jr. of Columbus as Secretary, and the re-election of C. R. Gilmore of Dayton
as Treasurer.
Amending Ohio‟s Constitution
The charms of Cedar Point lured the lawyers of Ohio back for the second year in a row, and
the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association opened there on July 11, 1911. The
customary reports of officers and committees were presented to a skeleton session, however, and
the presidential address was deferred until the following day in the hope that more members
might be present.
President Allen Andrews of Hamilton entitled his address ―Some Scattered Thoughts On
Public Opinion and Its Relation To The Law.‖ He defined public opinion as being not the
transitory sentiment of the moment, awakened by some public excitement, but rather the opinion
evolved by human experience which at length becomes the settled conviction of a people
concerning their rights and duties. The evolving federal constitution, according to Andrews,
provided an excellent example of the working of public opinion. The elaborately and carefully
planned electoral college provision of Section 1 of Article II fell to the voice of the people, and
had become only a technicality. The growing sentiment against slavery, which culminated in the
Civil War, had brought about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment.
Andrews then noted that for over a generation there had been growing dissatisfaction over the
method of electing United States senators, and a movement was then afoot to provide for their
direct election by the people. He then referred to the growing demand of the people that the
wealthy of the country should pay a larger share of the expense of the national government. Out
of this demand arose the recommendation of President Taft to the Congress to propose an
amendment to the Constitution authorizing the levying of an income tax.
That same public opinion, said President Andrews, was maintaining a critical attitude toward
law and lawyers, jurisprudence and judges, and this in turn was giving rise to public
dissatisfaction with the administration of the law. Unfortunately, he said, their dissatisfaction
would occasionally get out of hand, as witness the lynchings and mob violence which brought
reproach upon the nation. He urged reform in criminal procedures as a means of eliminating
these blots upon the national escutcheon. To overcome irreverence for law and authority,
Andrews said that we can only trust to our schools, colleges, churches, the press, the bench, and
the bar, and all other agencies that militate for moral strength and love of justice.
The President made critical references to various enactments of the General Assembly, and
urged his listeners to join with all good citizens in the work of constitutional revision, which was
about to begin. His closing words would be apropos today, ―Let us not surrender our birth rights
to the followers of the red flag and their allies. And let us in all this, as in all our work, hope and
strive that through our labor we may enjoy earth‘s greatest reward—consciousness of a duty well
done.‖
Here indeed was a fruitful field for positive public service for the lawyers of Ohio. The call
for the constitutional convention had gone out. The hue and cry for reform was in the air, and
some of the most controversial proposals were directed at the court system. Therefore, the need
for participation by the organized bar, to use its skill, training, and experience in the protection of
the public interest, was clearly indicated. The Ohio State Bar Association was equal to the
challenge, as would be shown by subsequent events.
Association members who were active in the 1960‘s and ‗70‘s will be interested in the lengthy
and sometimes bitter debate which followed the presentation of a Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee recommendation that judges of the Supreme Court be appointed by the
Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The motion to adopt the recommendation
was made by the Committee chairman, Simeon M. Johnson of Cincinnati, and he was
immediately opposed by J. R. Johnston of Youngstown, who recalled (erroneously) that Ohio
had tried the system before but abandoned it when the Constitution of 1851 was adopted.
The arguments made for and against the proposal were much the same as those heard today.
Judge J. M. Sheets of Ottawa, arguing in favor of the appointive system, stressed the need for
courage among the members of the judiciary to do their duty regardless of the next election. As a
clincher he said, ―Why, gentlemen of this Convention, the Savior of men was turned over to the
mob for crucifixion because of popular clamor, and the judge who tried him had not the courage
to stand out against the clamor.‖ An unidentified voice retorted, ―Yes, and he was an appointed
judge.‖
When the oratorical pyrotechnics were over, the proposal was voted down fifty-eight to
nineteen. The decisiveness of that defeat is all the more interesting in view of the fact that the
returns of a mail ballot to the members of the Ohio State Bar Association had shown a majority
in favor of the proposition.
Even in defeat, Simeon M. Johnson did not lose his sense of humor. When he presented the
next recommendation of his committee, he prefaced it by saying ―I hope that the ‗dear people‘
will have no objection to providing that the members of the Supreme Court shall be lawyers.‖
That proposal of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee was adopted.
Other recommendations of the Committee also dealt with the Ohio court system, and were
approved. In extending its approval the Association was, in effect, laying the foundation for the
court system under which we practice today. The recommendations included a provision for one
or more common pleas judges in every county, permissive joinder of the probate court and the
common pleas court, election of judges on non-partisan ballots, an uneven number of judges on
the Supreme Court, and the requirement that all judges must be lawyers and reside in the district
or county for which they were elected. All of these proposals were brought before the
Constitutional Convention of 1912 and recommended by that body to the people who, in turn,
adopted them.
The subject of justices of the peace came up for consideration. Evidently they were no more
highly regarded by the bar then than they were fifty years later. Speaking in favor of a proposal
to insure the appointment or election of competent men to the office, E. R. Eastman of Ottawa
referred to justices of the peace as being ―men who cannot read the statutes before them, who
cannot sign their names to the docket after it is written up by somebody else, [and] who cannot
make a docket for themselves …‖ Judge Manuel Levine of Cleveland expressed the view of the
big city when he said, ―it has been necessary to bring justices into court as common criminals on
charges of extortion, fraud and falsifying records.‖
In choosing a principal speaker for the convention, the Executive Committee disregarded the
admonition of the previous year that the Committee invite only local talent who would show up.
The Committee‘s choice was, in fact, one who had previously canceled out at the last minute
and, as if to tempt fate further, the Committee arranged for his transportation on the steamer
―Eastland‖, a crank ship which later capsized at its pier in Chicago with great loss of life. The
guest, Representative Samuel H. McCall of Massachusetts, arrived safely however, and
addressed the meeting on the subject ―Representative As Against Direct Government.‖ His
speech was considered so provocative that it was printed in the Atlantic Monthly in October of
1911. With the Ohio Constitutional Convention in the offing reformers, describing themselves as
Progressives, had turned their attention to Ohio. Their pet projects were the initiative and
referendum, and the recall of public officials (including judges). McCall‘s dissertation against
the proposed reforms apparently was not too persuasive. Although it pointed out the dangers in
the so-called reforms, the people of Ohio wrote the initiative and referendum into their
Constitution in 1912.
An interesting fact came to light at the 32nd Annual Meeting. Mortimer Matthews of
Cincinnati reported that an inquiry had been received from Franklin McVeagh, the Secretary of
the Treasury of the United States, concerning the grave of Salmon P. Chase, one of the great
figures in Ohio‘s political history. A committee of the Cincinnati Bar Association, of which
Matthews was chairman, had recommended that a suitable memorial be placed on the grave and
that a statue of the former chief justice be erected in Cincinnati. The report also called for a
statewide representative committee to raise funds to pay for the project. A motion was adopted
authorizing the President to appoint three members of the Association to serve on such a
committee. Those appointed were President Andrews, Atlee Pomerene and John McMahan.
***
1912 was a banner year for the Ohio State Bar Association. The Constitutional Convention
had met and approved for submission to the electors of Ohio a number of Association-sponsored
amendments to the Constitution. In the election held on September 3, most of these amendments
were approved.
For the third time in the Association‘s history, it had turned to the Forest City for leadership
Judge Frederick L. Taft had been elected President at the convention in 1911. The members of
the Cleveland Bar, mindful of the honor conferred upon one of their number, sought ways and
means to express their appreciation and hit upon a project which would insure the success of
Judge Taft‘s term and strengthen the Ohio State Bar Association where it most needed
strengthening. The project was a membership drive in Cuyahoga County. The Cleveland lawyers
staged a whirlwind campaign, and when the 33rd Annual Meeting convened at Cedar Point,
Cleveland lawyers were present in force. Their spokesman was H. Melvin Roberts, who read the
names of 319 Cleveland lawyers who had been approved for membership—almost one-third of
the lawyers in Cleveland. It was a 42% increase in the membership of the Ohio State Bar
Association, and marked the first time that the total membership exceeded 1,000.
The Cleveland delegation was full of stars. It included one future U.S. Senator, one future
Congressman, one future State Commerce Director, four future county officials, eighteen future
judges, one future Cleveland Mayor, five future state legislators, one future American Bar
Association president, and two future Ohio State Bar Association presidents.
Among the twenty-six other new members were Edward C. Turner of Columbus, who became
Attorney General of Ohio and a member of the Ohio Supreme Court, and Robert N. Wilkin of
New Philadelphia, who served on the United States District Court in Cleveland. Truly, 1912 was
a vintage year for the Ohio State Bar Association.
President Taft‘s address was devoted exclusively to the forty-one amendments to the Ohio
Constitution which had been proposed by the Constitutional Convention. By way of background,
the President briefly recounted the history of the development of Ohio‘s constitution, with
emphasis on the changes in the judicial system of the state. The principal measures described by
Judge Taft which were adopted and survive to the present day included: the grant of authority to
the Chief Justice to assign judges around the state; an increase in the number of judges of the
Supreme Court to seven; replacing the Circuit Court with the new Court of Appeals; fixing the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals; and the provision for at least one
judge of the Court of Common Pleas in each county. Under the proposals, all judges were to be
elected.
For the first time in its history, the Ohio State Bar Association accorded the privilege of its
platform to a woman, but this was only one in a series of firsts for Miss Florence Allen. This
remarkable woman had been denied admission to law school in Cleveland, so she had obtained
his legal education in New York. She became the first woman to serve on the Common Pleas
Court of Cuyahoga County, the Ohio Supreme Court, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The
subject of Miss Allen‘s address to the assembled lawyers was ―Women‘s Suffrage.‖ Her remarks
were received with interest, and she was warmly applauded even though she was not a member
of the Association.
Women‘s suffrage was one of the many controversial issues to come before the convention.
Agitation for reform was strong in the early years of the 20th century, known as the ―Progressive
Era.‖ In addition to the demand by women for the right to vote, a drive had been mounted for
recall of judges, for recall of judicial decisions, for the initiative and referendum, for permitting
suits against the state, and for prohibiting the use of injunctions in labor disputes. To face these
issues and the myriad of problems attendant on the job of rewriting the Constitution, an
interesting group of delegates to the Constitutional convention was chosen. There were 119 in
all. The presiding officer was a clergyman. Two of the delegates were avowed Socialists (they
tried hard to extend an invitation to Eugene Debs to address the convention, but were rebuffed).
It was perhaps inevitable that lawyers would be involved. Respect for the courts and the law was
on the wane, prompted largely by the huge backlog of cases in the courts and the allegedly ―soft‖
treatment of criminals, and it was incumbent on the legal profession to revamp the judicial
system in order that it might cope with the demands of the 20th century. Forty-five lawyers were
chosen as delegates, and they outnumbered the next largest occupational group—farmers—by
nearly two to one. Fifteen of the lawyers were members of the Ohio State Bar Association:
Stanley E. Bowdle of Cincinnati; John R. Cassidy of Bellefontaine; Dennis Dwyer of Dayton;
Nelson W. Evans of Portsmouth; John d. Fackler and Aaron Hahn of Cleveland; James W.
Halfhill of Lima; Frank H. Kerr of Steubenville; Edmund D. King of Sandusky; Roscoe J.
Mauck of Gallipolis; C. H. Norris of Marion; D. J. Nye of Elyria; Hiram D. Peck of Cincinnati;
William M. Rochel of Springfield; and Frank Taggart of Wooster. Thus, the Associationsponsored proposals were insured an adequate hearing and effective advocacy. Eleven of these
proposals were approved by the Constitutional Convention, and ten of them received a favorable
vote from the people.
The concern of the bar over the proposal for recall of public officers, including judges,
prompted the Executive Committee to invite one of the nation‘s foremost lawyers to deliver the
principal address at the 33rd Annual Meeting—Frank B. Kellogg, of St. Paul, Minnesota. When
the American Bar Association met at Milwaukee in August, 1912 it would elect Kellogg as its
President. He served both his profession and his country with distinction. President Warren G.
Harding called on Kellogg to represent the United States at the conference from which emerged
the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in the early 1920‘s. President Calvin Coolidge appointed him as
Secretary of State in 1925.
The speech of the distinguished Minnesotan was aimed at the recall provision offered by the
Ohio Constitutional Convention. Kellogg asserted that the demand for judicial recall was
attributable to the expense and delay incident to the trial of lawsuits. The fault, he said, was not
with the judges, but rather with the laws establishing the machinery of the courts, and termed the
recall proposal a deadly blow to the integrity of government.
It was perhaps coincidental that the most active participant in the 1912 Convention of the
Ohio State Bar Association should be elected President at the close of the meeting. The Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee had had its busiest year, because it reviewed most
of the proposals offered by the Constitutional Convention. The Chairman of the Committee was
Simeon M. Johnson of Cincinnati, and he had performed yeoman service. His group had
prepared a written digest of the various measures and placed them in the hands of each
convention visitor. Johnson then orally described each of them, and led the discussion
throughout the course of the meeting. Previous conventions had elected men to the Presidency of
the Association for their anticipated ability to deliver a rousing annual address, or else merely to
confer an honor on those whom the members felt in the abstract were distinguished members of
the profession. But the 1912 convention elected a kindly, courteous, industrious man who had
labored long and hard for the Association. Year after year he was in attendance. His name recurs
regularly in the report of the meetings and always in connection with important issues and
decision. Truly, he had earned the honor.
When it was announced that Simeon Johnson had been chosen President, there was instant
applause and cries of ―Johnson! Speech! Johnson!‖
The Constitution and Football Revised
When the members of the Ohio State Bar Association gathered at the Breakers Hotel at Cedar
Point for their 34th Annual Meeting, they were saddened by the deaths of two of the three men
who had graced the platform as officers in the preceding year.
President Frederick L. Taft and Secretary Gilbert H. Stewart, Jr. had both been taken in the
prime of life. Taft had returned to Cleveland from an eastern trip and went for the first time to
visit his firm‘s new office on April 7, 1913. While there he was stricken, and died later in the day
at the age of forty-two. At age forty had had been one of the youngest men ever to hold the office
of President of the Association. Gilbert Stewart was only thirty-three when he died. Elected
Secretary of the Franklin County Bar Association at the age of twenty-nine, and elected to the
same office in the Ohio Bar Association when he was thirty, Stewart had been headed for a
distinguished career to the bar of his native state.
On the brighter side the members of the Association certainly knew each other better at the
1913 meeting—for the first time the Executive Committee provided badges bearing the
members‘ names. Secretary Charles Buss urged all of the lawyers to wear their badges in order
that they might be distinguished from attendees at other conventions in the hotel. Another
innovation was the publication of the picture of the President in the report of the proceedings of
the Ohio State Bar Association.
The addition of more than 300 members in 1912 had not had a significant effect on the cash
balance of the Association, and it stood at $659.07 when the meeting opened. The Treasurer‘s
report revealed that the annual meeting was still a bargain, however, as the 1912 session had cost
only $211.20. The payment of $2 per annum dues presented its perennial problem, since thirtynine members were dropped for failure to pay for 1911 and forty-seven were in arrears for 1912.
Fourteen members resigned without giving reasons, among whom were four prominent
Cleveland attorneys: Newton D. Baker; Edward Bushnell; Walter L. Flory; and Frank H. Ginn.
Baker was then serving as Mayor of Cleveland, which may explain his action (he later rejoined).
Just as Cleveland had honored President Federick L. Taft by producing a large number of new
members in 1912, so too did the lawyers of Cincinnati honor their fellow townsman, President
Simeon M. Johnson, in 1913 by recruiting 143 new members for the Ohio State Bar Association.
In all, 185 lawyers joined the Association that year and one, its greatest benefactor, George W.
Ritter, was reinstated in 1913. The list of neophytes form the Queen City was replete with names
of men who would make their mark in the law or in politics: Charles S. Bell and James Garfield
Stewart, who served on the Ohio Supreme Court; Gerrit J. Fredriks, who was President of the
Association in 1939; Fred L. Hoffman, a judge of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court
and father of Fred L. Hoffman, Jr., the chairman of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee in the
1950‘s; Bert H. Long, who served on the First District Court of Appeals; and Charles Sawyer,
who was Secretary of Commerce of the United States.
The action in July 1913 was not confined to the convention hall of the Breakers Hotel, where
the lawyers debated. Outside, on the broad, sandy beach of Cedar Point, two young collegians
who had obtained jobs as lifeguards for their summer vacation, and who had brought with them a
football, amused themselves by throwing the ball back and forth until, with constant practice,
they developed the art of throwing a spiral pass. Prior to that time the ball was seldom thrown,
and then invariably was an ineffective, wobbly, end-over-end toss. On a bright, fall day later than
same year the two erstwhile lifeguards, Gus Dorais and Knute Rockne, journeyed with their
Notre Dame teammates to West Point and unveiled their perfected weapon. With it they
destroyed a strong but surprised Army team, 35 to 13, and revolutionized football.
But inside the hotel progress in football went unmarked. That year, with the adoption of the
constitutional amendments proposed by the convention, Simeon Johnson had plenty of material
for discussion in his annual address. In the same precise, scholarly manner which had
characterized his work as chairman of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee,
he proceeded to outline the constitutional changes which had been approved by the electorate,
and the laws implementing those changes which had been enacted by the legislature.
Johnson was careful to note the margin by which each constitutional amendment was adopted,
and in so doing threw considerable light upon the temper of the people in those times. It will be
remembered that reformers had raised a cry for adoption of the initiative and referendum, and for
the recall of public officials (including judges). These proposals were carried in Ohio. The
majority for the first was a mere 81,280, but the second won by nearly twice as many votes.
Thus, apparently, the people were much more concerned about their right to remove errant
officials than about proposing or rejecting legislation. A proposal to limit the granting of
injunctions in labor disputes and provide for jury trials in contempt proceedings arising out of the
violation of injunctions had been opposed by the State Bar, and president Johnson happily
reported that the people had rejected the amendment (albeit by only a 16,406 votes). The
feminist movement suffered a set-back—the women‘s suffrage amendment was defeated by
87,000 votes, although it drew the largest number of electors (586,295 voted on the questions).
The unpredictable nature of the electorate was demonstrated on one of the most complicated
of all of the proposed amendments. This authorized the passage of laws to create the Torrens
System of land title registration. The idea had been advanced by E. H. Fitch of Jefferson at
Association meetings more than twenty years earlier, but although the Association had endorsed
the plan it had never been enacted by the Legislature. When the matter came before the people of
Ohio, they gave it a majority of 174,566, the largest of any of the amendments proposed in 1912.
The legislature enacted the necessary enabling statutes in 1913, and the people have virtually
ignored the subject since.
President Johnson decried voter lethargy. Only 55% of the eligible electors of Ohio
participated in that most important of elections on September 3, 1912. He called upon the wit and
brain of the bar to come up with a solution to the problem, but without waiting for that solution,
he proposed his own—a poll tax to be levied on every eligible voter who did not exercise his
franchise.
Johnson pressed for a measure which had been discussed by the Association before and was
advocated by a President forty-six years later, and which became a part of the Modern Courts
Amendment of 1968. Johnson called for a grant of plenary rule-making power to the Supreme
Court but, unfortunately, he was not allotted the longevity to see the idea come to life.
Having looked into the future, the distinguished Cincinnatian looked into the past—back
thirty-three years to a subject stressed by the first President, Rufus P. Ranney. ―The crying legal
evil of today is delay in the administration of justice,‖ said Johnson. The cure, he said, would be
to dispose of all procedural matters before trial, simplify pleadings, shorten the time for filing
them and deny all continuances except when imperatively necessary. Today, we have at last
made great progress in that direction, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of the late Chief
Justice C. William O‘Neill. But, it took a dreary, long time for the suggestions of Simeon
Johnson to come to pass.
The guest speaker for the 34th Annual Meeting was Judge Alton B. Parker of New York, a
member of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge expressed concern over the diminishing
respect for our system of government on the part of many citizens. He said that this disrespect
existed in high places, and singled out his fellow New Yorker and the former president,
Theodore Roosevelt. For proof, he offered this quote from a speech by Roosevelt, ―We need,
through executive action, through legislative and through judicial construction and interpretation
of law, to increase the power of the federal government. If we fail to thus increase it, we show
our impotence.‖ Parker expostulated, ―This is a treasonable utterance. It proposes rebellion
against the government as created by the people.‖ Parker went on to speculate the Roosevelt
would have been elected had he chosen to run in 1908, and with the power of the presidency in
his hands, he might have succeeded himself in 1912.
The rising tide of socialism, which had sent 900,000 of its followers to the polls in 1912,
deeply troubled Judge Parker. He noted that a Socialist Convention in the State of Washington
refused to allow the Stars and Stripes to be flown in its hall. He called on the organized bar,
trained as it was to distinguish between legal right and legal wrong, to refrain from petty
criticism of authority and of public officials, to support law and order, and to boldly condemn the
wrong and defend the right.
Continuing the salutary practice of the preceding year, the convention honored another man
who had devoted long hours to the welfare and advancement of the Ohio State Bar Association.
That man was the perennial member and long-time Chairman of the Executive Committee,
Harlan F. Burket of Findlay.
The convention closed with the customary resolution of thanks to the retiring President, for
his faithful and distinguished service. Although Johnson‘s term was over, it did not signal the
end of his devotion to the work of the State Bar, for he continued to attend and actively
participate in the Association‘s Conventions for another forty years.
CHAPTER FIVE
THROUGH THE GREAT WAR AND BEYOND
“… while the war is ended, its aftermath remains … The whole land is about to,
and of necessity must, enter upon a period of reconstruction [in which] … the
members of our profession must take an active, nay, more, a leading part.”
Ensign N. Brown
***
On the Fourth Estate
Eight days after the double murder at Sarajevo, Serbia, which precipitated World War I, The
Ohio State Bar Association‘s 35th Annual Meeting convened at Cedar Point‘s Breakers Hotel
The membership stood at 1,137. Sixteen members had resigned during the year and ten of
them were from Cleveland. The cash position of the Association improved by only $1.42 over
the previous year, but the total assets were up much more, by virtue of the appearance in the
Treasurer‘s statement of $540 in preferred stock. In today‘s inflationary spiral, it is somewhat
depressing to note that the Executive Committee had spent only $100 for the 1913 convention.
The only other committee of the Association reporting expenses was the Admission group,
which spent a total of $8.01 to obtain sixty-six new members, among whom were: the
Suffragette leader of the 1912 meeting, Florence e. Allen of Cleveland; James M. Hengst of
Columbus, who became President of the Association in 1949; Leroy A. Manchester of
Youngstown, the founder of one of that city‘s most prominent firms; and William G. Pickrel,
who became Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, President of the Association, and a founder of one of
Dayton‘s leading firms. Another new member, Charles R. Miller of Cleveland, so impressed his
new colleagues that they elected him President at the next convention.
Former President Allen Andrews, in his report as Chairman of the Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee, provoked a pitched battle when he offered a resolution requesting
repeal of the statute establishing the non-partisan ballot for judicial elections. Andrews frankly
admitted that the opposition to the resolution was so strong that he was tempted to apologize for
offering it. A lengthy debate ensued, with every imaginable parliamentary maneuver being tried.
During its course, the effects of partisan politics on judges and on their election were aired. One
delegate inquired of Judge Louis H. Winch of Cuyahoga County whether a certain judge who
had won election on the non-partisan ballot would have been elected if he had been on a partisan
ballot, during a recent Democratic sweep in Ohio. The Judge replied, ―Undoubtedly. We have a
very intelligent electorate in Cuyahoga County.‖ In the end, the resolution was defeated, and the
non-partisan ballot remained.
Judge John A. Shauck of Columbus informed the members of the Association that a
movement was on foot to restore and maintain perpetually the residence of Chief Justice John
Marshall in Richmond, Virginia. He requested a grant of $500 from the Ohio State Bar
Association t the Society for the Preservation of Virginia antiquities, to further the project,
Schauck‘s proposal inspired John McSweeney to a flight of oratory which included this
encomium, ―Chief Justice Marshall is not dead. The sceptered monarch of intellect, he rules us
from his urn; and in his ashes live his unquenchable fires.‖ On the strength of that and kindred
loquacity, the motion carried.
President Harlan F. Burket of Findlay chose as the text for his annual address passages from
the speech of Judge Rufus P. Ranney in Toledo in 1881. It will be recalled that Judge Ranney
expressed concern about the manner in which the media reported the proceedings of the courts.
Burket noted that in the last five or six years public criticism of the courts and the judges had
reached alarming proportions. This criticism—by lawyers, laymen and the press alike—spread
disrespect for the law, which in tern, manifested itself in a shocking increase in crime. As an
example, Burket pointed out that in 1912 there were eighty-six murders in London, England, but
in the same year in Chicago there were 231. He added that if Chicago were as large as London
the proportionate number of murders would have been 693.
Much of the public criticism was directed to criminal procedure, and to the variety of defenses
and rules which seemed to favor the accused. The President said that this situation resulted from
the fact that the people who settled America were largely political or religious refugees who
remembered well the tyranny they suffered in their native lands. They were determined that there
would be no repetition of that situation in America. The result was that in developing the
criminal law of the new land, every safeguard was thrown around the defendant, not with a
purpose to allow the criminal to escape, but rather to protect the innocent. Then over the years as
the case law developed a wall of technicalities and defenses was constructed which resulted in
the number of acquittals in criminal cases being about equal to the number of convictions. When
the public read that a defendant in a criminal case was acquitted after a trial sensationally
reported in the media, it was understandable that the cry of, ―Lynch him!‖ often arose, or that
demands for recall of judges and judicial decisions spread across the land.
President Burket, in assessing the blame for the low esteem in which the courts were held,
took the lawyers partly to task. He said ―the lawyer is looked upon in much the same manner as
the family physician; and as long as a client has faith in his attorney he sticks to him. For this
reason, when an attorney is disappointed in the outcome of a case, he should be careful of what
he says about the court and as to why he lost the case, as his remarks are apt to be misconstrued,
misunderstood and magnified by his clients. If an attorney wins one-half of his cases, he is
coming up to the general average.‖ Burket recounted the story of the judge who remarked that
when a lawyer lost a case he was entitled to swear at the court for three days, but after that it
became contempt of court.
Turning his attention again to the press, Burket said, ―The one thing required in all news items
is accuracy; and while it is hard to be accurate with the ordinary news item, it is ten times harder
to accurately criticize courts and judges and to accurately comment upon their decisions.‖ He
cited as an example a case which takes months to try, and in which skilled attorney on both sides
thoroughly research the law, and argue it to trained judges who then read the entire record and
the briefs, and then also conduct their own research. They apply the law to the proven facts,
discuss the case from every angle, and then announced their decision. The very next day a
newspaper would be free to report the decision and, if it wishes, criticize both the decision and
the judges who rendered it. Burket inquired, ―How can this decision be reviewed, or intelligent,
fair criticism be made, unless it is made by one as skilled in the law as the attorneys engaged in
the trial of the case and the judges deciding it?‖ His answer was that, obviously, no intelligent
criticism can be made unless it is made by one who is knowledgeable and has taken sufficient
time to go over the case in a careful, lawyerlike manner.
He alluded to a Georgia case, which had attracted the attention of three respected periodicals
of the day, the Literary Digest, Life, and the Pittsburgh Dispatch. Each of them vigorously
chastised the Supreme Court of Georgia for its insensibility to the rights of the defendant who,
the periodicals reported, was a ten-year old boy who received an eleven-year prison sentence for
stealing a five-cent bottle of Coco-Cola. They moaned that the boy was being robbed of the carefree days of his youth. They cried that his stay in jail would degrade him and he would be turned
loose with hatred in his heart to prey upon society.
The actual facts were somewhat different from those reported in the media: the boy was
eleven and not ten; the theft was part of his daily ritual—he loitered on the streets, stole food
from groceries and wagons, jumped on and off moving trains, and had violated a previous
probation for a similar offense; he had entered a plea of guilty; his father had complained to the
court that he could do nothing with him; the sentence was not for eleven years, but until such
time as the boy had reformed or had attained his majority, whichever occurred first; the boy was
not sent to jail or the penitentiary, but to the Fulton County Industrial Farm, which was a school
for wayward children, operated under the supervision of the state board of education, where the
pupils spent half of the day in school and the other half doing farm work.
The facts of the case were public record, duly set forth in the court reports, and the
information concerning the Industrial Farm had been obtained by the Chief of the Children‘s
Bureau of the U. S. Department of Labor. All of this material was available to the news media,
but it was ignored, said Burket, in the interest of sensationalism. Burket called upon the lawyers
to inaugurate a program of education, to the end that the attitude of attorneys, the public and the
press might be more in accord with the high aim and lofty ideals of courts and judges. The
rallying cry of that campaign should be ―Accuracy and Fair Play.‖
Reform was still in the air in 1914, and the Executive Committee invited three speakers to
present papers on subjects of current interest. The first speaker, Charles S. Whitman of New
York, argued for the unification of the laws of the states of the Union. He pointed out that the
American Bar Association had sponsored and fostered the organization and development of the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and that the conference now
numbered in its membership forty-three states, two territories, the District of Columbia, and two
possessions. The Commissioners could boast that forty-six jurisdictions had adopted the Uniform
Negotiable Instruments Law. Whitman referred to the fact that the Governors of the several
states had first joined for a meeting in 1908 and since 1910 had been meeting annually, and one
of the avowed purposes of the Governors‘ conference was the promotion of greater uniformity in
state laws. ―This,‖ Whitman said somewhat cautiously, ―would be a mighty force in securing this
goal depending upon the men who serve as governors.‖
Workmen‘s Compensation, now secured by a new constitutional provision in Ohio, had been
debated at numerous state bar meetings. It was discussed by Dudley R. Kennedy of Youngstown,
a member of the Association. Ohio had enacted a Compensation Act second to none, according
to Kennedy, and in so doing had become the twentieth state to adopt such a law.
Another comparatively new development in the law was the Juvenile Court concept. The
speaker on the subject of the Juvenile Court was the Probate Judge of Montgomery County, Hon.
Roland W. Baggott of Dayton. The Judge was blessed with a sense of humor—he said it was
beyond his conception why the privilege of addressing the convention was extended to him, and
he predicted that when he finished it would also be beyond the conception of his listeners. He
quoted an old Persian adage to the effect that when you have nothing to say—say it.
Judge Baggott traced the history of the Juvenile Court from its earliest beginning in the barn,
where the father was the judge and carried a briar stick or a bed slat. From such courts one could
prosecute neither appeal nor error, and a motion for a new trial simply resulted in reimposition of
the original sentence. ―We also discovered that children have certain rights which are entitled to
respect. Back of it all lays the proposition that were it not for the neglectful, ignorant and
diffident parent there would be no necessity for the Juvenile Court today.‖ Baggott then added,
and his words are worth considering today, ―that parent is in as serious need for being placed on
probation as is the delinquent and dependent child.‖
Of Rules of Practice and Procedure
The Ohio State Bar Association Convention of 1915 was an action-packed session, filled with
innovative ideas and graced with a distinguished orator. As usual it was held at the height of the
summer season, in the Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point.
The first innovation was the appointment by the President, Judge John N. Van Deman of
Dayton, of a Reception Committee consisting of lawyers, lawyers‘ wives, a lawyer‘s daughter,
and at least one lady lawyer, Miss Mary Grossman of Cleveland. The President noted that one of
the objects of the Association was to cultivate cordial social relations among the members of the
bar. This goal might be accomplished if the Reception Committee were to introduce and
otherwise assist all of the ladies and gentlemen attending the convention to become acquainted.
Van Deman reasoned that if the wives and daughters made friends at the meetings they would
attend more frequently in the future, and husbands and fathers would come with them.
A letter to President Van Deman from General R. C. Ballard Thruston of the National Society
of the Sons of the American Revolution, was read to the members. The letter was apparently in
response to a request from Van Deman for a replica of a George Washington hatchet which
could be used as a gavel at the bar conventions. Thruston came through in fine style. Being
unable to locate the wanted article at the souvenir stands in Washington, he contacted the owner
of Wakefield, the plantation on which George Washington was born, and asked him to cut down
a cherry tree on the farm. The owner complied with this unusual request, and furnished Thruston
with two winter-cut cherry logs (that type not being susceptible to checking). Ballard then
obtained a drawing of the type of hatchet used in colonial days, and fashioned a hatchet which
corresponded in size and design to the one reputedly used by George Washington when he cut
down the cherry tree.
The General offered a suggestion in his letter which met with favor among the assembled
attorneys. Mindful of the waves of immigrants coming to America‘s shores and appreciative of
the fact that many of them were seeking American citizenship, he called upon the Ohio State Bar
Association to join with his organization and others in urging the federal judges who administer
the oath of allegiance to new citizens to impart greater dignity and ceremony to the event. A
resolution authored by George R. Young of Dayton in support of the request was duly adopted,
and copies were sent to all Ohio Congressmen and federal judges.
The growing importance of legislative liaison by the Association prompted Smith W. Bennett
to offer a constructive idea. His proposal directed the Executive Committee to consider the
advisability of holding a mid-winter meeting in order to familiarize the members with pending
legislation. It was approved, and a meeting was scheduled for December 28, 1915, at Cincinnati.
Reverting to more mundane matters, the convention received the report of the Committee on
Admissions. Eighty-four new members joined the fold, including two prominent Clevelanders
who had resigned several years before, Newton D. Baker and Walter L. Flory, both of whom
contributed generously of their time to the work of the association in subsequent years. Other
notable names in the list were: C. M. Finfrock of Cleveland, long time professor of law and once
dean of Western Reserve University Law School; William L. Hart of Alliance, later a judge of
the Ohio Supreme Court and President of the Association; J.W.L. Henney of Columbus, who
became reporter of the Supreme Court and also served as Secretary of the Association from 1920
to 1950; C. Blake McDowell of Akron, who in 1979 was honored for his 65 years as a member
of the Ohio Bar; George S. Raup of Springfield, whose son is an active member of both the Ohio
State and American Bar Associations; and Charles B. Zimmerman, also of Springfield, who
served for more than a quarter of a century on the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee was able to report a major
legislative victory. The Torrens Act had had its Ohio origin in the state bar, but had been adopted
by the legislature with a provision that it be mandatory for all lands in the state. This met with
widespread opposition, and the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee drafted a
bill to remove the mandatory feature. This was passed by the legislature and signed into law by
Governor Willis.
Another Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee recommendation presented to
the convention produced a heated debate. The proposal was that a special committee of the
association be chosen to urge the legislature to provide by law that the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court and other judges of the state be empowered to make rules for practice, procedure
and pleading in the courts of Ohio, and that these rules should supersede all statutes on the same
subject. The recommendation also requested that the Chief Justice be made the executive head of
the judicial department of the state. A somewhat similar rule-making proposal had been endorsed
previously by the Association, and the Governor had appointed a Commission on Judicial
Reform which also endorsed the concept. The legislature, however, balked at the idea of
surrendering any power that it thought it possessed.
Judge J. R. Johnston of Youngstown, who said that he had been a member of the Association
since its birth, hotly asserted that he had never seen a more objectionable proposition presented
to an Association meeting. He called it, ―government by commission,‖ and said, ―we have too
much of that now.‖ He declared that the Ohio constitution vested the legislative power of the
state in a General Assembly elected by the people, and that the rule-making proposal would
therefore violate the Constitution. Judge Johnston then moved to indefinitely postpone the whole
matter.
Chester W. Merrill of Cincinnati took the floor and en riposte suggested that the Judge had
only partially examined the Constitution. He said that the power of making procedural rules was
a judicial, not a legislative function, and pointed-out the English and federal precedents.
Simeon M. Johnson, who had been a member of the Governor‘s Commission, attempted to
pour oil on the troubled waters by suggesting that the matter be referred back to the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee for refinement and improvement, because the
proposal was too crude in its present form. He said there was no haste about the matter, ―We do
not have any legislature, thank God, the coming year‖.
Johnson then called the attention to the delegates to the fact that there was a distinguished
legal scholar in their midst who might have something to offer on the subject. Thereupon,
President Van Deman called upon Roscoe Pound, lately a member of the Supreme Court
Commission of Nebraska and now a faculty member of Harvard Law School. The distinguished
educator gave a contemporaneous but scholarly and thorough dissertation on the subject, which
so impressed Johnson that he withdrew his motion. But not all of Pound‘s listeners were
convinced that the proposal of the floor was ripe for a vote on the merits, and another motion to
refer the matter back to the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee was offered
and adopted.
Another controversial subject considered by the convention was the case reporting system.
Judge Louis Winch, the chairman of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee,
uttered the familiar complaint of lawyers, ―There are too many reports and too many law books.‖
He was especially wroth over having to purchase books of nisi prius decisions containing cases
that had already been reversed by the appellate courts before the lower court decisions were
published. The Reporter of the Supreme Court—E. O. Randall of Columbus—was present, and
he explained the procedure for printing the reports of Supreme Court cases. He suggested that the
same procedure be followed in the reporting of Court of Appeals decisions. As a result of the
discussion, a committee was appointed to study the matter.
In an effort to enlarge the membership and strengthen the Association for its legislative
activities, George B. Harris of Cleveland offered a resolution embracing a new idea. He called
for the creation of a bar association in each county of the state, and the appointment by the
President of a committee with one member from each county to see to the organization of such
associations. The resolution was adopted.
The principal speakers for the annual meeting were President Van Deman with his
presidential address, Judge Charles W. Dustin of Dayton, and Roscoe Pound. Van Deman
confined his discussion to a review of recent statutory enactments and several of the current
problems of the legal profession. He strongly disapproved the habit of the Supreme Court of
disposing of cases with the entry, ―Affirmed without report,‖ in about three-quarters of the cases.
The President referred the Supreme Court to Article IV, Section 6 of the Ohio Constitution
which provides, ―The decisions in all cases in the Supreme Court shall be reported, together with
reasons therefore…‖, and urged the Court to abide by the constitutional mandate.
Much is heard these days of medical malpractice. Van Deman described a huge reproduction
of the Code of Hammurabi in the Law Library at Northwestern University. Among other things,
it contained a provision relieving the courts of the necessity of hearing medical malpractice
cases—the rule was simply that if a surgeon operated on a patient and the patient died, the
surgeon paid with his life. This tended to relieve pressure on the court docket in ancient Babylon.
The Bar Reorganizes
For the first time since 1880 the Ohio State Bar Association met for a winter meeting, which
was held December 28, 1916, at the Hotel Gibson in Cincinnati. Much was accomplished—105
new names were proposed by the Committee on Membership and all were accepted. Twenty-five
of them, including a future president of the Association, Harry S. Wonnell, and a future Supreme
Court judge, Robert M. Sohngen, were from Butler county.
The Cincinnati Bar Association members outdid themselves as hosts. An impressive array of
speakers was scheduled and, for the first time since the days of the Put-in-Bay meetings, a
banquet was held. It was given in honor of the Past Presidents of the Association, and a large
number of lawyers and their ladies were in attendance.
The featured speaker was the distinguished United States Senator from Indiana, Albert J.
Beveridge. Justly famed as the biographer of Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, he chose the
life of the latter as his topic. When the name of the great Chief Justice comes up, lawyers are
inclined to think of McCulloch v. Maryland, Marbury v. Madison, Gibbons v. Ogden, and the
other landmark cases in which Marshall established the power of the federal government and the
authority of the Supreme Court. The Senator, in one succinct, colorful paragraph, graphically
portrayed the versatility of the great Virginian:
―John Marshall, with rifle in hand among the mountains; John Marshall—reading in Pope‘s
Essay on Man that ―Order is Heaven‘s first law‖; John Marshall—reading Blackstone, the poetry
of the law; John Marshall—marching out to the battle of Great Bridge, fighting with the Minute
Men; John Marshall—a soldier in the War of the Revolution; John Marshall—in the chaotic
Virginia Legislature, always the same calm, cool man; John Marshall—in the Constitutional
Convention witnessing the dawn of the Republic; John Marshall—in Congress, the peer of the
best statesmen of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts; John Marshall—the antagonist of those who
would evade the payment of just debts and obligations of contract; John Marshall—resisting the
first rebellion in the United States in eastern Pennsylvania; John Marshall—standing by George
Washington while such storms of wrath against him blew as never have blown against any man
in America‘s history; John Marshall—Commissioner of the United States to France, antagonist
of Talleyrand, mastering Talleyrand and witnessing there the ascent of Bonaparte to absolute
power as the result, as Marshall thought, of the French Revolution; John Marshall—as Secretary
of State, and finally under the Providence of God, Chief Justice of the United States—the
supreme judicial intellect of this country and the world!‖
The final speaker of themed-winter meeting was Dean James Parker Hall, of the University of
Chicago Law School. His topic was ―The Selection, Tenure and Retirement of Judges‖. Dean
Hall discussed the various American methods of choosing judges, and concluded that the
appointment of judicial officers by the executive had produced the most able and satisfactory
courts. It is interesting to note that in 1916 a proposal had been made for filling judicial offices
by appointment for a limited term following which the appointee would have his name go on the
ballot followed by the question, ―Shall he be retained in office?‖ Nothing came of it.
The regular summer annual meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association convened as usual in
the Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point. The new President, Col. Charles R. Miller of Cleveland, was
obviously a mover and a shaker. He had served three consecutive years as President of the
Cleveland Bar Association. When he assumed that office the organization was dying, but he so
stirred up the lawyers of the Forest City that the membership rapidly increased, and the
Association started a regular schedule of monthly meetings which continued during his three
terms.
Miller immediately began to shake things up in the Ohio State Bar Association. To make the
meeting more pleasant for the ladies, he appointed a social committee of five women, headed by
Mrs. Lewis C. Laylin of Columbus. All ladies in attendance were urged to register with that
committee, and plans would be formulated for their entertainment. The plan worked, and an
enjoyable reception and dance was staged that evening.
Allen Andrews, a former President, presented the report of the Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee, which recommended conferring the rule-making power on the
Supreme Court. This, it will be recalled, had provoked much opposition at the 1915 meeting, but
this time it was endorsed with little discussion by a vote of thirty-eight to twenty-eight.
The Committee on Legal Education had not been heard from in several years. Inspired
perhaps by the spirit of change which prevailed in the Association, the Committee moved to raise
the standards for admission to the Bar. Specifically, it was proposed that graduates of the literary
department of colleges or universities approved by the Supreme Court be required to undergo
three years of legal study, and that all other students undergo four years. Secondly, only
graduates of colleges, university, high schools, or schools of equal grade, should be admitted to
the bar examination, and no high school equivalency should be accepted. Finally, every applicant
should be required to take a one-year course in legal ethics. The report was approved.
When President Miller delivered his address, it was obvious that he meant business and
intended to shake the Association out of its lethargy. He said, ―My experience during the year
warrants me in making the suggestion to you that your Constitution and By-Laws are no longer
adopted to the requirements of your organization and should be entirely re-written.‖ He pointed
out that the sole constitutionally prescribed duty of the president was to deliver the annual
address. ―If that is all the function of your president, I see no purpose in his election.‖ Said
Miller. Other deficiencies in the basic document noted by Miller were lack of any power in the
President to appoint or direct the work of committees, and the vesting of the management of the
Association‘s affairs in the Executive Committee, which was not an elected body.
The President called for revision of the Constitution and by-laws to cure the defects which he
had recited, and to provide for an Executive Committee composed of the President, the
Secretary, the Treasurer and three Vice Presidents, all of whom would be elected by the
members. This Committee would then be charged with the management of the Association and
the planning and execution of its programs. In this way, Miller contended, the members would
recognize the organization as something more than just the sponsor of an annual bar picnic.
President Miller stressed the need for higher standards for the Bar. Endorsing the Legal
Education Committee‘s recommendation for increased educational requirements, he suggested
that if doctors of veterinary medicine must have a college degree, there was no reason why
lawyers should not have one. ―Moses‖, said Miller, ―was probably the first great lawyer. He
gives in the Ten Commandments not only a code of morals but a code of professional ethics,
without the thorough understanding of which no man can be a successful lawyer!‖
President Miller wanted action, and he obtained it. On that same day George W. Ritter of
Toledo proposed a series of amendments to the Association Constitution to accomplish the
changes advocated by Miller. A committee consisting of E. N. Brown of Youngstown as
chairman, Simeon M. Johnson of Cincinnati, Charles M. Buss of Cleveland, George W. Ritter
and Edward C. Turner of Columbus, was appointed to study the Ritter resolution and report back
during the current meeting. The committee was ready the following day. Chairman E. N. Brown
presented the report and moved its adoption. George B. Harris of Cleveland (who was gaining a
reputation as a stickler for rules) raised a point of order, contending that the amendments could
not be voted on until they had been approved by the Executive Committee. He was sustained by
the Chair; the Executive Committee then met, and reported back that it approved in part and
disapproved in part the amendments. The question on adoption being put to the meeting, the
members approved the amendments to the Articles VI, IX, SVIII, and XX of the Constitution
and Article I of the By-Laws. The amendments provided substantially as follows:
Article VI. The President, with the approval of the Executive Committee, was required to
appoint the members of the standing committees and to remove any member therefrom subject to
the same approval.
Article IX. The President was made ex officio chairman of the Executive Committee, and the
Secretary became, ex officio, Secretary of the Committee.
Article XVIII. The President was given the power to call special meetings of the Association,
subject to the approval of the Executive Committee.
Article XX. The requirement of Executive Committee approval of Amendments was deleted.
Article I of the By-Laws broadened the power of the Executive Committee in selecting
speakers for the annual and special meetings.
Near the close of the Thursday session, Charles S. Northrup of Toledo moved that the
President, Secretary, and Treasurer be elected by a vote of the members present in person at the
annual meeting and that no Committee on Nominations be either appointed or elected by the
district representatives and that candidates be nominated from the floor. That motion was passed
by a vote of twenty-seven to seventeen.
A new era had opened for the Ohio State Bar Association. On Friday, July 7, U. L. Marvin of
Cleveland moved that the convention proceed to the election of officers, with nominating
speeches limited to two minutes. The motion was approved, and fir the first time in its history,
the Ohio State Bar Association had not one, but two contested elections. Smith W. Bennett of
Columbus nominated Judge Edmund B. King of Sandusky for President. George B. Harris
nominated Judge E. B. Follett of Marietta. To insure the honesty of the count, Bennett and Harris
were designated as tellers. King was elected. Two men, Charles E. Blanchard of Columbus and
G. J. Fredricks of Cincinnati, were nominated for the office of Secretary. Blanchard was elected.
Clement R. Gilmore of Dayton was re-elected Treasurer without opposition. With that, the
precedent-shattering convention of 1916 adjourned.
The Nation at War
The success of the mid-winter meeting held in Cincinnati was such that it was deemed wise to
repeat as 1916 drew to a close. Thus, President E. B. King of Sandusky summoned the
Association to the capital city on December 20. They met in the new and luxurious Deshler
Hotel, which would be a Columbus landmark for the next half century. This was the first of
many Ohio State Bar meetings to be housed in the hostelry, which would vie with the Neil House
as the locale of many important Ohio political gatherings.
A portent of the perilous times lucking just over the horizon was contained in a letter from the
National Security League, inviting the Ohio State Bar Association to send three delegates to a
meeting at the New Willard Hotel in Washington, D. C., in January, 1917. The purpose of the
meeting was to consider the basic conditions of national security and the development of an
efficient national spirit. The impressive list of speakers for the meeting included Joseph H.
Choate of New York, a former president of the American Bar Association and ambassador to the
Court of St. James; Judge Alton B. Parker, also of New York; and George Wharton Pepper of
Philadelphia, a distinguished law teacher and lecturer, who would later represent his state in the
United States Senate. In response to the invitation, the President appointed M. J. Hartley of
Xenia, and two past presidents of the Association, Edward Kibler of Newark and Simeon M.
Johnson of Cincinnati, as delegates.
George W. Ritter of Toledo was beginning to take a more active part in Association
proceedings. Noting that there appeared to be little, if any, cooperation between the Ohio State
Bar Association and the local bar associations, Ritter moved that a committee be appointed to
study this subject and prepare any necessary constitutional amendments to enable the
Association to develop a plan for such cooperation. Cooperation among bar associations was a
national topic as well. President King read a letter he had received from the Secretary of the
American Bar Association, inviting him to attend a meeting of bar leaders in Philadelphia, to
discuss ways and means of securing cooperation among bar associations. N. B. Billingsley of
Lisbon was appointed to represent the Association at that meeting.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee recommended a state constitutional
amendment authorizing the appointment of women as notaries public, and the convention
adopted the proposal. A suggestion that the terms of Court of Appeals and Supreme Court judges
be lengthened to fourteen years, except in case of the terms of the incumbent judges, was made
by the President of the Columbus Bar Association, Frank E. Raymund. It was referred to the
Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee for study.
A dinner was held on December 20 with no less than four speakers. Their subjects varied
from, ―The Supreme Court under the New Constitution,‖ by Chief Justice Hugh L. Nichols, to,
―The Weather,‖ by Judge O. B. Brown of Dayton. The meeting closed the next day with an
invitation from Frank E. Raymund to make Columbus the permanent site of the mid-winter
gatherings of the Association.
For the second time in the history of the Association, its Annual Meeting convened with the
nation at war. Expressions of patriotism and national unity, and ways and means to further the
war effort, permeated the meeting.
Past President Allen Andrews of Hamilton offered what he called ―the sentiment of the
Association,‖ which was incorporated into a telegram to the President of the United States: ―The
Ohio State Bar Association and all its members recognizing, as we do, that our country now
confronts a great crisis and proclaiming, as we do, that we and all our professional ancestors
have ever been patriotic and loyal in our national crises, do pledge ourselves to uphold and aid in
every way to the full extent of our power the Nation and the President in the battle for
international law, the freedom of self-government and the cause of humanity.‖
Treasurer Clement R. Gilmore offered a resolution which called upon all members of the bar
of Ohio to familiarize themselves with the Selective Service Law, and to consider carefully the
merits of any claim for exemption before rendering professional service to a claimant. It was
further stated that they should limit that service to the preparation of affidavits and avoid the
presentation of oral arguments. The resolution was adopted—clearly, the Association disfavored
evasion of the Draft.
A Jay Miller of Bellefontaine offered a motion that the Secretary notify the secretaries of all
local bar associations that they should organize local committees to handle the work of their
members who had entered the armed forces. That motion was approved. The members also voted
to make cash gifts to the American Red Cross and Y.M.C.A. to help in their charitable work for
soldiers.
The Committee on Legislation had lost its chairman, and his successor admitted that he had
never called a meeting. His reason (a reasonable one) was that by the time he was appointed the
legislature was about to adjourn. Ordinarily that was, ―a consummation devoutly t be wished,‖
but in this instance the legislators left for home without enacting much of the Association
endorsed legislation. Even so the chairman, Charles B. Hunt of Coshocton, had one positive
result to report—the legislature enacted an Association-sponsored measure providing that only
members of the bar could hold the office of judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and
Common Pleas Court. The proposal calling for a constitutional amendment to permit women to
serve as notaries public failed.
The manner of reporting court decisions continued to plague the lawyers of Ohio. Daniel
Iddings of Dayton chaired a special committee on the subject. Ohio law offices continued to
maintain on their library shelves the Circuit Court and Circuit Decisions reports, and the
committee denominated these ―misnomer reports‖ for the reason that the circuit courts had been
replaced by the courts of appeals. The committee had been successful in getting the court of
appeals judges to adopt a rule whereby the judges selected the cases to be reported, and only
those so selected could be published and then only through the official reports of the court of
appeals. The rule was honored, however, more in the breach than in the observance, and the
committee recommended an amendment to the rule that would incorporate the plan in effect in
Kentucky, where all briefs containing citations from unofficial reports were stricken if the same
case cited was reported in the official report. Another suggestion by the Committee was to have
the court of appeals cite for contempt any clerk, deputy, stenographer or other officer who
furnished copies of decisions to anyone other than the official reporter.
George Ritter of Toledo reported for the Special Committee on Cooperation Among Bar
Associations. Citing the Association‘s constitutional objective of promoting social intercourse
among members of the bar of Ohio, Ritter said, ―The Association has been a success as a failure
in carrying out this purpose.‖ He presented a list of provocative recommendations, many of
which eventually were adopted. The changes they worked in the Association when adopted were
almost as profound as the changes that resulted from another Ritter proposal, namely, the Ohio
Legal Center.
The first suggestion was that the legal profession should pyramid its memberships, much as
the medical profession and the real estate industry had done. Under that plan, when a man joined
his local group, he automatically became a member of the state and national organizations with
only one dues obligation for all three groups.
Ritter next questioned the propriety of twenty-five or even fifty members at a state convention
taking a stand which bound the entire Association. His remedy was to conduct a mail ballot of all
members, or to request a vote by each county bar association.
His next idea was eventually approved, and could well be the thing that transformed the Ohio
State Bar Association into the vibrant organization we know today. He called for the
employment of a secretary who would be a member of the bar and who would devote his full
time to the work of the Association.
Ritter also took up the cudgel for the uniform reporting system. In doing so, he made the
proposal which today separates the Ohio State Bar Association from all other similar legal
societies: ―If necessary, in the protection of ourselves and those equally interested in the law,
perhaps an arrangement may be made whereby our Association can publish its own journal,‖
said Ritter. Thus was born the idea of the unmatched weekly publication, the Ohio BAR.
The Committee on Legal Education also stirred the waters. Its chairman, A. C. Shattuck of
Cincinnati, noting the ever-broadening law, urged that subjects such as inheritance tax,
employers‘ liability, income tax, interstate commerce and workmen‘s compensation be
incorporated into the law school curricula and into the bar examination, and that the course of
required study be lengthened to four years. Unfortunately, the report was filed away.
The presidential address of E. B. King included a review of the events which brought about
America‘s entry into the Great War. He called on every one to do his bit for his country. Viewing
things closer to home, the President called attention to the fact that the biennial session of the
General Assembly had been concluded and that, between February 1 and March 21, 1917, it had
passed more than 200 laws. Of that number fifty-four were enacted on March 20 and 135 were
passed on March 21. President King predicted that such haste would generate a large number of
errors, perhaps as many as are committed annually by the judges of the nisi prius courts.
The Supreme Court also received some attention from the President. He referred to the fact
that in the preceding twelve months only forty of its opinions had been published. In the same
period the other states‘ high courts whose opinions are reported in the Northeastern Reporter had
done substantially more work. King called on the association to take the necessary steps to
increase the powers and jurisdiction of the state‘s highest court so that it would not be an object
of ridicule by other similar state courts.
The final session was occupied with a report of N. B. Billingsley on the actions of the group
summoned by the leaders of the American Bar Association from among the presidents or
delegates of the state bar associations. Billingsley informed the members that the purpose of the
meeting was to explore ways and means of securing a closer relationship between the American
Bar Association and the state associations and to give the latter a greater voice in the leadership
and operation of the former.
For the third consecutive year, death stalked the President of the Ohio State Bar Association.
Presidents John R. Van Deman and Charles R. Miller both completed their terms of office and
died shortly thereafter. Judge Schauck, who was elected on July 11, 1917, fell ill several months
later and died on January 3, 1918.
Those who lived in the days of the first World War will recall the strong anti-German feeling
which manifested itself in such ways as the removal of the German language courses from the
public schools and the boycott against all German-made products, including such classics as the
recordings of Mme. Ernestine Schumann-Heink‘s great contralto voice. Memories of the intense
patriotism of those days are evoked by the memorial address honoring Judge Shauck that was
given by his former colleague on the Ohio Supreme Court, Judge Maurice H. Donahue.
―Although of German parentage, Shauck had no sympathy with Prussian militarism … he
expressed in the vigorous language he could command his supreme contempt for that ‗kultur‘ the
highest ambition of which seems to be to murder and pillage, to torture and destroy,‖ said
Donahue.
Judge Donahue paid tribute to his colleague in words that should be read and re-read by every
sitting judge. He said, ―He understood that it is not the duty or the privilege of a court to write
the laws of the state, but rather to interpret and apply the law as written; and he also understood
that these laws reflected the intelligence of the people of the age in which he lived, and he never
pretended to be wiser than his day or his generation.‖
The 1918 meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association had many firsts. Not since 1887 had the
Ohio State Bar Association‘s annual convention met elsewhere than at the Lake Erie resorts of
Put-in-Bay or Cedar Point. For the first time since the founding year of 1880, the Association
met in Cleveland, and it was the first state bar meeting to be held in Cleveland‘s old Hollenden
Hotel. Moreover, The Ohio State Bar Association and the American Bar Association were
meeting in the same city at the same time, and this had never occurred before. Another first,
albeit controversial, was an increase in the dues from $2 to $5 per year. The former figure had
been in effect for thirty-eight years, having been written into the original constitution. Finally,
for the first time an asterisk marked the names of the members who were engaged in the military
services of the United States. There were fifty-seven such notations in the roster for 1918.
Because of the war, the mid-winter meeting had been cancelled. Therefore, the summer
meeting in Cleveland was the first opportunity for the members of the Association to meet their
acting president. The executive committee had drafted Thomas J. Keating of Columbus for that
position, and he opened the 39th Annual Meeting with the presidential address. It was devoted
almost entirely to a review of the various pieces of federal legislation which had been enacted for
the protection of the men and women serving in the armed forces, but it also contained
miscellany of historical interest. It will be remembered that in 1918 the federal income tax was
still a relatively novel experiment. Keating pointed to a survey of the income tax returns filed for
the year 1916, which revealed that: 20% of all stockbrokers had sufficient income to be required
to file returns; next among gainful occupations were lawyers with 19%; doctors were a poor third
with 7%; and doctors were followed by the poor but honest farmers, of whom only 0.25% filed
returns. Keating concluded that either this was a fine demonstration of the prosperity of lawyers,
or else it was a testimonial to the sterling integrity of the much-abused members of this noble
profession.
The acting President then turned his attention to the sad plight of Russia. ―Even now,‖ he said,
―we behold the spectacle of this hapless country feebly trying to collect itself, with hands
outstretched to America, the one country on the face of the earth that it can trust, for help.‖ Let it
be recorded that we gave it.
The new secretary, Charles E. Blanchard of Columbus, departed from custom in his annual
report. Elihu Root had said that the American bar is called upon to think and to form and lead
public opinion nationally, not locally, and the American Bar Association was the agency to carry
out that duty. Taking his cue from that statement, Blanchard said that the bar of Ohio is called
upon to think, and to form and lead public opinion in this state. Blanchard then leveled a charge
in clear straightforward terms, ―And there ought to be a strong, virile, active agency through
which the Ohio bar could and would perform this duty. The nucleus of such an agency exists in
the present Ohio State Bar Association, but every thoughtful member must admit that the present
state association does not reach or direct the opinion of the Ohio bar as such …‖ He then called
for radical and aggressive measures to make the Association the active agency through which the
lawyers of Ohio might express a united opinion.
The Treasurer‘s report contained a touch of pathos. After serving for fifteen years as Treasurer
of the Association, Clement R. Gilmore was forced by illness to miss the meeting and announce
his retirement. Meetings were still relatively inexpensive to run. The cost of the 1917 session
was $234.51. Thirty-six members and two firms contributed a total of $99 to provide
entertainment during the meeting of the American Bar Association in Cleveland. Gilmore
recommended that the dues of all members serving in the armed forces be waived, and this was
approved by the convention.
Fifty names were added to the membership rolls. The Committee on Admissions put on a
letter-writing campaign in which about half of its members took part, but the campaign produced
more excuses than applications. The report noted that most of the young lawyers were in the
service; and the older lawyers said that they needed all of their spare funds to buy war bonds or
war stamps, or to give to the Red Cross of other war activities.
Once again Chairman W. J. Geer of the Grievance Committee was able to report that the
lawyers of the Association had behaved and lived together in unity. ―The only grievance we have
to report,‖ said Geer, ―is against the Kaiser and that will be settled by a non-negotiated, dictated
peace …‖
The jinx that plagued presidents of the Association struck acting President T. J. Keating
during the meeting, and he had to be taken to his home with a serious illness. Past President
Allen Andrews took over as chairman of the convention.
The Special Committee on a Uniform System of Reporting continued its efforts to eliminate
duplicate publication of the same cases. It was also coordinating its efforts with a similar
committee of the American Bar Association. This latter group had drafted a memorial to be
presented to the courts of the United States and to the appellate courts of the several states. It was
a condensation of a paper given by John W. Davis, the Solicitor-General of the United States and
an unsuccessful candidate for President of the United States in 1924. Davis‘s paper quoted
verbatim from an opinion by Judge R. M. Wanamaker of the Ohio Supreme Court. Wanamaker
complained that case law was becoming the bane of the bench and the bar. He said that the old
time great thinkers and profound reasoners were being succeeded by an army of sleuths hunting
some precedent in some case to support even the most absurd and ridiculous contention, and that
this forced judges to decide according to a preponderance of cases rather than a preponderance of
reason and justice. It was the sense of the Association that there should be only one set of
appellate reports and that set should be the one published by the official reporter under the direct
supervision of the judges. The Committee was directed to continue its work.
The Return to Peace
Peace once again blessed the land when the lawyers of Ohio gathered on the shores of Lake
Erie for the 40th Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association. Strange names of far away
places—Chateau-Thierry, St. Mihiel, Cantigny, the Argonne Forest, and others—had been
etched in the minds of the American people as they read of the brave deeds of their soldiers who
fought there.
Many of these soldiers were lawyers, who left the bench or their offices to join the army
which turned the tide of battle in favor of the Allies, and defeated what President Ensign N.
Brown called the greatest army the world had ever known. Referring to the efforts on the home
front, President Brown said that it was a source of great gratification to know that to a far greater
extent than any other profession or trade, the bar had responded with practical unanimity to every
request made of it by the military, financial and charitable organizations of the country.
Continuing his presidential address, Brown firmly argued that the Association must have a
qualified representative present in Columbus during the time that the legislature is in session. He
also urged the Association to copy the plan in effect in New York, under which all bills affecting
personal or property interests or which are remedial in nature, and which affect New York City,
are reviewed by the New York City Bar for approval before final enactment.
Brown further asserted that the 1912 amendment of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution had
not worked and should be changed at the earliest possible time. He thought that the direct
primary was, ―a delusion, a snare, a farce, a humbug, and a fraud.‖ Its operation, he said, resulted
in more bribery and corruption than were ever dreamed of under the convention system, and it
should be abolished. He also stated that the ultra-radical theorists preaching revolution and
anarchy must be stopped, and that laws must be enacted or the constitution must be amended to
prevent such treasonable preaching.
Following the presidential address, Secretary C. E. Blanchard reported that the exigencies of
war and the waiving of the dues of members in the armed forces had reduced the treasury. As a
result, Volume XXXIX of the annual reports had been reduced in size and printed in paper back.
Blanchard noted that Martindale‘s American Law Directory, as it was then known, showed that
there were 4,350 lawyers in Ohio, but that only 1,089 were members of the Association. As a
way to remedy this poor percentage, the Secretary renewed his suggestion that he be replaced by
a full-time, paid secretary for the Association was constituted, and directed to report at the next
meeting.
The committee headed by Daniel W. Iddings of Dayton, charged with the task of eliminating
the duplication of reports of the decisions of the court of appeals was finally able to report a
victory. The legislature had enacted a measure known as the Spidel Bill, which incorporated the
features previously approved by the Bar Association and established a single publication
containing court of appeals decisions. This report would be published under the direction of the
reporter of the Supreme Court. The Spidel Bill also raised the price of each volume from $1.50
to $2.50. President Brown left the chair and presented the report of the committee in the absence
of Chairman Iddings. Although the Spidel Bill was now the law, the Bar Association had to
accept the report of the Iddings Committee and by that acceptance it would be bound to carry out
the spirit of the bill. Presumably, this would be done by the concerted action of the lawyers and
judges in refusing to purchase the privately printed publications or to contribute to them in any
way. The report was unanimously accepted, and it sounded the death knell for the independent
publications.
For the very beginning of its existence, The Ohio State Bar Association devoted a part of
every convention to memorials. Those for the year 1919 included the memorials of four past
presidents of the Association, and that of the long-time Treasurer, E. C. Gilmore.
Asahel W. Jones of Youngstown, descended from a pioneer family which settled in the
Western Reserve in 1803, received a common school education and read law to gain admission
to the bar. He had been present at Case Hall in Cleveland in July of 1880 when the Ohio State
Bar Association was founded, and was its fifth president. In 1905, he was elected Lieutenant
Governor of Ohio.
Judge Peter A. Laubie of Salem was President of the Association in 1899. He used the
occasion of his presidential address to deliver a scathing denunciation of the administration of
President William McKinley and its handling of territorial acquisition after the SpanishAmerican War. Lauie fought in the Atlanta campaign and many other Civil War battles. He had
served as Mayor of Salem, and judge of the common pleas court and of the old circuit court.
Edward Kibler served not only as President of the Ohio State Bar Association, but also as
Vice-President for Ohio of the American Bar Association. A native of Newark, he had served his
hometown as councilman and solicitor, and had participated in the drafting of the Ohio
municipal code. The author of his memorial said that Kibler was the refutation of the claim that
all of the great lawyers are in the large cities.
Alfred Dewey Follett had followed closely the progress of the Great War. It was his daily
custom to arise early and go to downtown Marietta to learn of the progress at the front. On
November 4, 1918, he returned to his home to raise the flag, as was also his custom. He was
found dead a short time later under the folds of the flag that he sought to raise. Thus, he never
saw the eventful day of November 11, 1918. Follott attended Marietta College, read law with his
father and was admitted to the bar in 1880. He joined the Association in the same year and
became its President twenty-eight years later. Thus, in the space of one year, the Association and
the bar of Ohio lost four of its most distinguished leaders.
The 40th Annual Meeting of the Association was not solely concerned with speeches, debates
and necrology. In the way of service to members, the Treasurer, John F. Carlisle, offered a
resolution requesting Attorney General John G. Price to use his best efforts to have all laws
enacted during the current session of the 83rd Ohio General Assembly printed in pamphlet form
and distributed to the lawyers of the state, in order that the lawyers should not have to wait until
publication of the bound volume.
On the social side, the barristers were entertained with selected readings by the wife of
Attorney Louis B. Sawyer of Cincinnati, and with music and dancing. The annual dinner
featured additional selected readings, and three speeches by members of the Association.
The League of Nations was uppermost in the minds of all American citizens in 1919. Every
school in the land had inculcated its students with the principles enunciated by George
Washington in his farewell address, including the caveat to beware of entangling foreign
alliances. Now President Woodrow Wilson was advocating the establishment of an organization
unlike anything that had every existed in international politics. As idealistic as were the goals of
the League of Nations, they would have to be sought in unchartered waters, and Americans were
wary. The Ohio State Bar Association invited a distinguished jurist to discuss the League of
Nations from a purely legal standpoint. Chief Justice Wendell Phillips Stafford, of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia and formerly a member of the Supreme Court of Vermont, said
that he was analyzing the League charter as a lawyer without partisanship, ―… to me the
conclusion seems irresistible that the covenant is in several vital respects inconsistent with the
constitution of the United States and beyond the treaty-making power granted by that great
charter.‖ The speech made such an impression that it was ordered printed and distributed to the
members.
CHAPTER SIX
THE ROARING TWENTIES
“In October, 1924, the Bar Association Bulletin was first issued to the members
of the Association. Its usefulness has been demonstrated … membership in the
Association has increased, attendance at its meetings has been more universal
and larger numbers, and projects fostered have received greater and more
widespread consideration … Commencing with this issue, the Bar Association
Bulletin is changed in name to The Bar Association Report (Cited “Ohio BAR”);
no new magazine is created, but an established periodical is increased in content
and capacity, and enlarged and extended in scope.”
Ohio BAR
Vol. 1, No. 1
April 3, 1928
***
The Bar Integration Issue
The Ohio State Bar Association ushered the 1920‘s in with great style and éclat. Never before
had there been a meeting so elaborately planned as the mid-winder gathering in Dayton on
January 23 and 24, 1920. The program included such special events as a luncheon sponsored by
the National Cash Register Company at the Officers Club, a complimentary tea for the ladies at
the Dayton Women‘s Club, a banquet for the men and a dinner for the ladies at the Miami Hotel,
followed by an informal dance, another complimentary luncheon given by the bar of
Montgomery County at the Engineers Club, and an automobile tour of Dayton and environs.
A full complement of committees organized themed-winter meeting. Each committee had a
Dayton lawyer as chairman and one or more visiting lawyers as members, and they planned well.
The format they established (with the exception of cocktail parties, which were the victims of
Prohibition) is essentially the same as is followed at present-day conventions (to the chagrin of
many, however, luncheon and dinner events in recent years are no longer ―complimentary‖).
The Dayton meeting was eventful in other respects. By some adroit parliamentary
maneuvering, the Association Constitution was amended, first to permit amendments to be
adopted by a majority of those present at any meeting, and second to authorize the creation of a
Judicial Section t be composed of all present and former federal, state and municipal judges in
Ohio. A question was immediately raised because four probate court judges were not lawyers
and for that reason had not been included in the amendment. A motion was adopted to include all
judges, and the revised amendment passed. A third amendment to the Constitution authorized the
President to make suggestions for action by the Association, consistent with the objects and
purposes of the organization, upon which suggestions action must be taken.
Recognizing the continuing importance of legislative activity, a fourth amendment was
adopted, which established a Committee on Legislation and prescribed in detail its duties. These
included the use of all proper means to procure the enactment of bills. How this language would
square with present-day Internal Revenue Service regulations is debatable but moot, because the
provision has since disappeared from the Constitution.
The final, and certainly the most important alteration of the Constitution, was the addition of
an article providing for the duties of the Secretary, requiring that he maintain an office in
Columbus, and directing that he be paid such salary as the Executive Committee should
determine. This amendment had long been advocated by Secretary Charles E. Blanchard of
Columbus and George B. Harris of Cleveland.
The most memorable event of the winter meeting of 1920 was the oration by the Hon. John A.
McMahon, who was President of the Association in 1886 and was now the senior member of the
Dayton bar. McMahon had been named honorary chairman of the meeting. Here was a man who,
looking down from the pinnacle of his 87 years, had witnessed more than half of the history of
the United States. He said, ―I have seen all our railroads built, our telegraphs and telephones, the
aeroplane and submarine invented, and electricity made as obedient as the horse. I have seen the
war with Mexico, the Civil War, the War with Spain and the terrible war just ended … I have
seen the President of the United States liberate, by the stroke of his pen 4,9000,000 of Negro
men …‖ McMahon then, as a prelude to discussing the recently announced demands of the
American Federation of Labor, stated that when he looked over our country and beheld it leading
the world in cultivation of the earth, the output of the factory, the number and value of its
inventions, and the comfort and general prosperity of its laboring classes, he wondered if it was
the same country to which the American Federation of Labor was referring in its militant
platform.
A resolution by William J. Geer of Galion was adopted which, though short and
uncomplicated, would occupy the attention of the Ohio State Bar Association for nearly two
decades. The resolution provided that the recommendation of the American Judicature Society,
for the incorporation of the bar in each state, be referred to the Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee with instructions to prepare a bill to accomplish that purpose; to draft the
necessary amendments to the Association‘s Constitution and to mail copies of the bill and the
amendments to the members prior to the July meeting. The gist of the American Judicature
Society recommendation was to provide for the integrated bar (also called the ―unified‖ or
―compulsory‖ bar) in the several states, under which membership in the state bar association is
required of all lawyers.
The mid-winter meeting adjourned on a positive note, with the adoption of a resolution urging
the Congress to cease any attempt to amend the federal Constitution to authorize federal
legislation in the field of marriage and divorce.
***
In July, 1920 the lawyers of the Ohio State Bar Association were summoned to the Breakers
Hotel at Cedar Point for the 41st Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association. Apparently,
not many of them heeded the summons in time for the first session, because the presidential
address of Smith W. Bennett of Columbus was deferred until after the receipt of reports of the
officers and committees in order that more people might be present.
The report of the Treasurer, John F. Carlisle, disclosed that the Association headquarters were
in the office of the firm of Ballard, Price and Jones in the Hartman Building in Columbus. The
rent was $20 per month. Also, the Ohio State Bar Association now had sufficient funds to make
deposits in interest-bearing accounts. $2,000 was invested in certificates of deposit in three
Columbus savings and loan companies.
The issue of transcending importance at the Annual Meeting was the question of the
integration of the bar of Ohio, so as to make membership compulsory as a prerequisite to the
right to practice law. George B. Harris had presented the comprehensive recommendation of a
special committee to accomplish this goal through an act of the legislature authorizing the
incorporation of the bar. His recommendation had been referred to the Judicial Administration
and Legal Reform Committee, which submitted its findings on July 7, 1920. President Bennett
relinquished the chair to present the argument in favor of the Committee‘s favorable report on
the matter. He said, ―I consider this an epochal event beyond anything that has ever been
considered by this Association relative to its own perpetuity … If we desire to be an aid to the
courts in an administrative capacity, in an executive capacity to carry out their orders, in a selfregulating capacity for ourselves, we must become concretely powerful and not remain a
disjointed, disorganized organization.‖ Bennett then offered a resolution calling for the
appointment of a committee to devise ways and means, including possible legislation, for the
incorporation of the Association. The President was persuasive, and his resolution was promptly
adopted.
The most voluminous report of the meeting was submitted by the future President of The Ohio
State University, George W. Rightmire, who was then Chairman of the Committee on Legal
Education. The Committee had made a comprehensive study of the educational background of
those admitted to the Ohio Bar from 1907 to 1916. In that ten-year period, 64% of those taking
the bar examination presented high school certificates, and 36% presented evidence that they had
had one or more years of college training. For actual legal education, the survey showed that
61% presented only law school certificates, and 13% offered proof of study only in a law office.
Those who combined both types of preparation were 26% of the total admitted. Thus, in the ten
years ending in 1916, nearly 40% of all candidates relied in whole or in part on law office
preparation, i.e. they ―read law‖ under a preceptor, for admission to the bar. One of the
remarkable things about this is that there were then no less than thirteen law schools in Ohio
whose certificates met the requirements of the Supreme Court. Of these schools, four were in
Cleveland: John Marshall School of Law; Rufus P. Ranney Law School; Cleveland Law School;
and Western Reserve University Law School. Three were in Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati
College of Law; Judge F. R. Gusweiler‘s School; and a Y.M.C.A. School. Two, Toledo
University Law School and St. John‘s College, were in Toledo. Two, Ohio State University and
a Y.M.C.A. School, were in Columbus. The remaining two were Ohio Northern University at
Ada, and a Y.M.C.A. School at Youngstown. Compared to the present when only nine law
schools exist in the state, it is strange that from 1907 to 1916 so many applicants were willing to
risk the high failure rate (25%) which applied to those who pursued office study alone or
combined office and law school study.
Chairman Rightmire noted the failure of the Association to take any constructive action in
support of previous recommendations for stricter education requirements by his Committee. He
then proposed that an education campaign be carried on among the members of the bar of Ohio
to be followed by a referendum on the need for raising the standards for admission to the bar.
Specifically, Rightmire advocated a three-year course in day law schools and a four-year course
in night law schools. The report was adopted.
Article V of the Constitution of the Association provided that the President should deliver an
annual address, and that he would be ineligible for a second term. Both provisions had been
scrupulously followed in the past, but now, with two meetings a year, some interpretation was
necessary. President Smith W. Bennett provided his own interpretation by delivering not one, but
two annual addresses. In the first, at Dayton, he compared the verbose debate over the Treaty of
Versailles with the short, succinct terms given by Grant to Lee at Appomattox Court House,
where Grant said, ―Take your side arms, also your horses—you will need them to plow your
fields.‖
Noting the unrest abroad in the land, the President urged adherence to constitutional methods
for reforming the government. Much of the unrest was being generated by a group representing a
distinct minority of the people of the country. Specifically, he referred to labor unions who were
demanding that the government purchase the railroads and the coal mines and turn them over to
the employees. The general welfare clause of the Constitution was being transformed, he said,
into a special welfare clause by the Congress at the behest of the labor unions. Examples cited by
Bennett were the exemption of labor unions from the anti-trust laws and the prohibition of the
use of injunctions in disputes over conditions or terms of employment.
By the time of the Annual Meeting at Cedar Point, President Bennett had other matters to
discuss in his annual address. Of particular concern to him was the cost of state government,
which in Ohio had increased from $2.53 per capital in 1910 to $5.18 per capita in 1920. To help
solve the problem the very best and most constructive minds were needed in the General
assembly, according to Bennett.
The President reviewed legislation enacted by the 83rd General Assembly. Among the bills
passed in 1920 was one increasing the salary of the Chief Justice to $9,000 per year and those of
the other members of the Supreme Court to $8,500. Court of appeals judges were raised to
$8,000. Common pleas court judges were given minimum salaries of $3,000 with increments of
$25 for each 1,000 population up to a maximum of $5,000.
Daniel W. Iddings of Dayton was elected President without opposition, and John F. Carlisle
was re-elected Treasurer. When the time for election of the Secretary arrived, the President
recognized the incumbent in that office, Charles E. Blanchard, who said that it was time to
choose a man who could devote his full time to the office. Blanchard declined to be a candidate.
Ensign N. Brown arose to commend Blanchard for his excellent service, and then nominated
John L. W. Henney, the Reporter of the Supreme Court. Mr. Henney was elected without
opposition, and his election signaled the beginning of an era for the Ohio State Bar Association.
The Convention closed with a speech by President-Elect Iddings in which he said he was
going to organize a flying squadron to travel into every Ohio county in search of members. This
squad would be armed with a movie lecture prepared through the courtesy of John H. Patterson,
an honorary member of the Association, and his lecture bureau at the National Cash Register
Company. Iddings also proposed the acquisition of a law publication which would be run in the
interest of the Association.
The new President said that with the fortunate coincidence of having the Supreme Court
Reporter as its Secretary the Association had never had such an opportunity, and he would resign
at the mid-winter meeting if the group did not make the most of it. They made the most of it—as
Reporter, Mr. Henney had an office in the Judicial Annex of the State House, and when he
returned to Columbus as Secretary of the Association he brought the Association records to that
office, which gradually expanded into the quarters which were the home of the Ohio State Bar
Association until 1961.
***
Nineteen twenty-one was a banner year for Ohio. Coach John W. Wilce led the Buckeyes of
Ohio State to the Rose Bowl at Pasadena, California, for the first appearance of the scarlet and
gray in the greatest of all post-season football games. The Cleveland Indians were the world‘s
champions in baseball, having beaten the Brooklyn dodgers in a thrilling World Series which
included an unassisted triple play by the Indians‘ second baseman, Bill Wamby, and a basesloaded home run by right fielder Elmer Smith. Neither of these feats had ever before been
accomplished in a World Series game. Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, an Ohio-born lawyer,
was Commissioner of Baseball, having been called from the federal bench to restore integrity to
the game after the Black Sox scandal of 1919. On the national scene, Warren G. Harding of
Marion was President of the United States. William Howard Taft of Cincinnati, an ex officio
member of the Ohio State Bar Association, was Chief Justice of the United States. Harry M.
Daugherty of Washington Court House, a dues-paying member of the Association, was Attorney
General of the United States.
When the mid-winter meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association opened on January 28, 1921,
in the District Court Room of the Federal Building in Toledo, President Daniel W. Iddings
expressed the pride of all Ohioans in his opening address. He recounted that it was near Toledo
that General Anthony Wayne won his great victory in the Battle of Fallen Timbers. At Toledo,
Iddings said, the first railroad in Ohio was constructed. A former editor of the Toledo Blade,
David R. Locke, who wrote under the pseudonym of Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby, supplied the
humorous writings which helped ease the tremendous strain under which Abraham Lincoln
labored during the Civil War. Iddings noted that some have credited the success of the Union
arms to three causes: the army; the navy; and the Nasby letters. The Association‘s President then
referred to Morrison R. Waite, a lawyer who had practiced in Toledo for thirty years and became
President of the Ohio Constitutional Convention in 1872. While serving in that capacity, Waite
was appointed Chief Justice of the United States by President Ulysses S. Grant. Hampton L.
Carson, president of the American Bar Association, in his History of the Supreme Court of The
United States said of this great Toledoan: ―His remarkable administrative ability, … his
promptness in the dispatch of business and his inflexible integrity, not only won the respect, but
commanded the confidence of the country.‖
President Iddings then spoke of the challenges and innovative programs of the Association.
For the first time, a concerted effort was being made to attract young lawyers. Letters were sent
to all applicants for admission to the bar prior to the date of the bar examination, urging hard
study and offering congratulations on their career choice. Later, at the admission ceremonies,
representatives of the state and area bar associations and the Chief Justice and Judges of the Ohio
Supreme Court welcomed the new lawyers and urged upon them the advantages of membership.
Henry H. Hollencamp of Dayton, at the direction of the Executive Committee, wrote invitations
to all nonmember lawyers in Ohio and followed with personal calls on many of them. The
membership campaign was eminently successful.
The principal business of the mid-winter meeting was the presentation of the proposed bill for
incorporation of the bar. George B. Harris of Cleveland, chairman of the special committee on
the subject, gave a detailed description of the bill and answered all questions with clarity and
dispatch. He received support from two visitors, Judge Clarence N. Goodwin of Chicago and
George G. Battle of New York. The former was active in the effort of the American Bar
Association to secure incorporation of the various state bar associations, and the latter reported
that the New York City Bar Association had been incorporated. The clinching argument,
however, came from the elder statesman of the Association, Simeon M. Johnson, who said ―…
the law is a jealous mistress, but she is a beautiful one. We all love her, and want to keep her
beautiful and clean. We need some such measure as this …!‖ A motion to approve the report and
appoint a special committee to guide the bill through the Legislature was adopted.
In the report of the Admissions Committee, chairman Morris D. Rice announced that 273 new
members had joined the Association. He claimed that this was the largest number ever admitted
at one time, and gave full credit to Henry H. Hollencamp for his indefatigable efforts on the
membership drive (Rice evidently did not know that 319 lawyers had joined the Association in
1912). The list of new members was broken down by cities, and the names of Toledo lawyers
was a ―Who‘s Who‖ of the Lucas County Bar of the 1930‘s and 1940‘s. They included M. C.
Boesel, F. M. Colbourn, A. L. Conn, N. H. Deeds, L. E. Eastman, E. R. Effler, Donald A.
Finkbeiner )who became President of the Association in 1940), E. J. Marshall, A. J. Seney, and
H. G. Wall.
Many other notable names were included in the new members list: C. L. Newcomer of Bryan,
who became a Common Pleas judge and also contributed generously of his time and talent to the
preparation and eventual adoption of the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act; Loren E. Souers of
Canton, whose son was chosen President-Elect of the Association in Toledo in 1979; Robert N.
Gorman of Cincinnati, who would serve on the Ohio Supreme Court, and whose son is presently
on the Common Pleas bench in Hamilton County; W. H. Annat of Cleveland, who would serve
in the Ohio Legislature and as Director of Commerce; Harold H. Burton, also of Cleveland, who
would serve successively as a state representative, mayor of Cleveland, United States Senator,
and Justice of the United States Supreme Court; Carl V. Weygandt of Cleveland who became a
judge in the Common Pleas Court, Court of Appeals and, finally, Chief Justice of the Ohio
Supreme Court. Other prominent Cleveland Attorneys who joined the Association at the Toledo
meeting were H. W. Bell, Howard F. Burns, Edward Bushness, E. C. Dempsey, John B.
Dempsey, Benjamin F. Fiery, Keith Lawrence (who became a leader in the Ohio Legislature), H.
O. Mierke, Lawrence C. Spieth, Herbert A. Spring and Malcolm B. Vilas.
Rumblings From Teapot Dome
Cincinnati was the mecca of the American legal profession in August and September of 1921.
The American Bar Association selected the Queen City as its convention site, and invited the
Ohio State Bar Association to meet jointly with it. The two groups gathered at the Hotel Sinton
to hear a star-studded panel of speakers. Greetings were extended by Carl M. Macobs, Vice
Mayor of Cincinnati, and addresses wee delivered by: Chief Justice William Howard Taft;
Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty; John W. Davis (who would be the Democratic candidate
for President in 1924 and who along with Daniel Webster, and an Ohio born lawyer and one time
Dean of the Harvard Law School, Erwin N. Griswold, argued more cases in the U.S. Supreme
Court than any lawyer in history); James M. Beck, Solicitor General of the United States; Sir
John A. Simon, formerly Attorney General of England; and, of course, Daniel W. Iddings,
President of the Ohio State Bar Association.
The speech of Attorney General Daugherty deserves special attention. The difficulties which
later befell him make his speech notable–consider this statement by Daugherty, ―Respect for law
and order was essential fact of our civilization. Without it life, liberty, and property are insecure.
Without it civilization falls back to the chaos and anarchy of primitive times.‖ He added, ―Our
safety and happiness lie in obedience to law by every man, woman and child within the domain
of our Republic, and no one can undermine respect for law without being, to that extent, an
enemy of law and orderly government.‖ This is the same man who was threatened with
impeachment three years later, and of whom Francis Russell in his book on the life and times of
Warren G. Harding entitled The Shadow of Blooming Grove said, ―Like most men who have
fought their way up in the political world, Daugherty was pitted and toughened by the battle. The
struggle made him morally ambiguous.‖ Daugherty, when a member of the Ohio House of
Representatives, defended himself against a bribery charge by saying, ―I do not claim to be so
honest that I cannot sleep at night, but I didn‘t get any of the money.‖
Inconsistencies such as these contribute to the low esteem in which politics and politicians are
held by the general public. And yet, when this same Harry M. Daugherty was appointed as the
chief law officer of the Republic, President Iddings sent the following telegram to PresidentElect Harding, ―Please accept heartiest congratulations over appointment of Honorable Harry M.
Daugherty as Attorney General. No greater compliment could be paid to the Ohio Bar and no
worthier a member of her bar could have been chosen.‖
Perhaps President Iddings was remembering another side of Daugherty‘s character. Shortly
after the bribery case against Daugherty ended in a dismissal of the charges in both the grand
jury and the Ohio House, the Columbus Post, which had trumpeted loudly and incessantly for his
scalp, ceased publication. Its staff workers, some of whom had been Daugherty‘s most vitriolic
detractors were out of work and in precarious financial straits because the Post had failed to pay
their back salaries. Daugherty distributed $1,800 among them from his own pocket, then sued the
publishers and collected the back salaries for the staff members. No fee was charged the
newspapermen by their one-time victim.
Iddings referred to Plato‘s Republic, wherein the ideal state was described as one that included
a class known as ―Guardians,‖ who Plato said ―must be selected with reference to high qualities
… They must be scrupulously educated; truth, courage and self-control must be inculcated from
childhood … They must be the oldest, the wisest, the ablest and most patriotic members of that
body …‖ Iddings asserted that modern lawyers are the Guardians described by Plato, but he
questioned whether they met the standards set by the Greek philosopher. ―The great trouble with
the incoming new members of our Bar is the loose scrutiny that is given to their moral
character,‖ said the President. He expressed approval of the idea of a five-year probationary
period for the young lawyer, during which time he would devote his whole mind and energy to
the practice of law, and determine whether he would or could follow the law as a career at the
end of the probationary period. ―The source of all law really is in the Bible, while Shakespeare
pointedly brings out the foibles of the law,‖ said Iddings, and proposed that all students of the
law be required to pass an examination on the Bible and Shakespeare in order to be eligible for
admission to the bar examination. As an after-thought, he said that a test on Blackstone‘s
Commentaries should also be a prerequisite.
The biggest duty of the Association, according to Iddings, was to monitor closely the moral
character of those admitted to the bar. Iddings then spoke strongly in favor of the integrated or
unified bar concept. He noted that North Dakota had enacted legislation effective July 21, 1921,
making it the first state in the Union to require all lawyers to join the state bar association. The
proposed Ohio bill, which had been so carefully drafted and strongly sponsored by George B.
Harris and his committee, did not share the same success. Although approved by the Senate
Judiciary Committee it did not get a floor vote in the Senate. Pending adoption of statutory bar
organization, Iddings advocated the Rotary Club principle of patronizing only other members of
the Association when forwarding business to other cities in Ohio.
President Iddings decried the practice of advertising by lawyers. ―We should censor legal
advertisements so as to keep our members from advertising their wares on the same plane as
soap and farm lighting systems,‖ said Iddings. He then described some of the notices published
by lawyers of that day.
They brought an admonition from the President: ―This sort of advertising is certainly not
respectful and is entirely out of keeping with the ancient traditions of our profession.‖
Henry H. Hollencamp, Executive Secretary, reported on his efforts on the membership
campaign, which produced over 400 new members, and also on his activities to publicize the
Association. He then offered some constructive suggestions for the improvement of the Ohio
State Bar Association: that the Executive Committee members be chosen from the new court of
appeals districts rather than the old common pleas court districts; that a council of local bar
associations be organized, with members elected in each county by the local associations; that an
arrangement be made with the local bar associations whereby each of their members would
become a member of the state association and the state dues would be collected at the local level
and remitted; and that no man be accepted as a member of the state association unless he was a
member of the local group.
The spelling of the first name of one of the candidates for membership in the Association
would seem to indicate that the candidate did not make much of an impression on the person
who presented his application. The name was listed as Wardell L. Willkie, 408 Terminal
Building, Akron. Nineteen years later he made a great impression on the occasion of the
Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The delegates there set up a
resounding roar of ―We want Willkie,‖ and thereby submerged the candidacy of another Ohio
lawyer, Senator Robert A. Taft of Cincinnati.
On Saturday morning, September 3, the members and guests boarded a train for Dayton,
where the representatives of the Montgomery County Bar Association met them and escorted
them by automobile to the schoolhouse of the National Case Register Company. There the
visitors were welcomed by Dr. Frederick B. Patterson, the President of National Case Register
Company. It was truly a gala day, for it included a trip to the McCook Aviation Field to witness
trial flights, and a visit to the Miami Conservancy project which was then under construction.
The great event closed with a lawn party and supper at the home of Dr. Patterson.
Struggles over Legal Education
By 1922 mid-winter meetings had become an integral part of the program of the Ohio State
Bar Association. On January 27 of that year Akron hosted its first meeting of the Association.
All sessions of the convention were held at the Akron City Club in the Ohio Building. Protocol
now called for an invocation, (which was given by Rev. G. W. Fast), and a greeting from the
mayor (which was extended by the incumbent D. C. Rybolt).
Unlike his predecessors, President Curtis e. McBride chose one topic for his annual address
and stuck to it for his entire presentation. It was a provocative subject, and one which would stir
impassioned debate today—the President proposed that the practice of calling expert witnesses
by each party to a lawsuit be shelved, and that when expert testimony was required the court
would select the experts and their fees would be taxes as costs. He said, ―The impression is
gaining, whether rightfully or wrongfully, that witnesses can be bought to present expert
scientific testimony.‖ McBride supported his idea with compelling arguments based on
precedents in several American states and many European jurisdictions.
***
The annual meeting opened on July 5, 1922 in the Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point. President
McBride aimed high in his choice of speakers. Noting that President Harding would be in
Marion at the time of the meeting, McBride extended an invitation to the President to address the
assembled lawyers. Harding declined in a cordial note in which he mentioned that he had been at
Cedar Point during state bar conventions in previous years and he knew the spirit and joy of such
gatherings. McBride also invited Chief Justice William Howard Taft to attend. He, too, was
forced to decline, but he asked McBride to tell the members that he loved them and hoped this
declination would not preclude a future invitation,
In his constitutionally mandated address, McBride said that the historic aim of the legal
profession is to make out of our great American family a happier and a better one. He traced the
development of the law from the earliest time in recorded history and stressed its importance in
the establishment and maintenance of the American Republic. Recognizing that great military
leaders, statesmen and diplomats made great contributions to world progress, McBride said,
―The victories of Napoleon are gone … nothing remains but the code of all the work which he
accomplished. Even the victories of Washington would have been of little avail but for the work
of lawyers in the Federal Convention of 1787, and the work of Grant and Lincoln would have
been of little permanent value but for the fact that the results were embodied by lawyers in the
13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Federal Constitution …‖
The most controversial issue to come before the 43rd Annual Meeting arose out of the report
of the Committee on Legal Education. The Chairman, George W. Rightmire, announced the
Committee‘s recommendation that the standards for admission be raised to require two years of
college training or the educational equivalent, plus satisfactory completion of three years of
study in an approved law school, or longer if the candidate had devoted only part of his time to
the study of law. The report further proposed that a special committee present the
recommendations to the Supreme Court and urge their inclusion in the Rules of Practice. The
new standards would not apply to anyone who had already filed his certificate with the Supreme
Court preparatory to commencing the study of law.
In support of the proposed standards, Rightmire pointed out that no changes had been made
since 1900, and still only a high school education or its equivalent was required. When that rule
had been fixed, the population of Ohio was just over 4,000,000, and of that number only 57,000
were enrolled in the high schools. By 1920 the population had grown to 5,700.000, and those in
the high schools numbered 150,000. The point of these figures, according to Rightmire, was that
the increase in high school education made it clear that the minimal requirements for a lawyer‘s
education no longer marked him out from the masses. Rightmire offered additional figures on
attendance in Ohio‘s forty-one institutions of higher education: In 1900 there were 8,000
students enrolled; by 1921 that number had tripled to 25,000. Clearly, college attendance was
becoming a general thing and the requirement of two years of college training for lawyers would
not be a hardship. The failure to increase the standards in twenty years had permitted hundreds of
persons who looked upon the law as a mere trade to creep into the profession. ―Their sole
purpose in attempting to practice law is to accumulate a fortune quickly,‖ said Rightmire. He
pointed out that the other professions in Ohio had increased their standards, and if the law was to
continue as the leading profession it must do likewise.
Judge Willis Vickery of Cleveland, a member of the Court of Appeals, and also the Dean of
Cleveland Law School, voiced strong opposition. He based his argument on the premise that the
Committee‘s proposal would discriminate against all but the affluent candidates for admission to
the bar. Vickery‘s institution was a night school and the largest in the state. It catered to working
men and women, few of whom had enjoyed a college education, or, to use the phrase frequently
employed by Vickery, ―were [not] born with a golden spoon in their mouth.‖ Vickery boasted
that seven of ten judges on the Cleveland Municipal Court were graduates of his school, as were
the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor and practically all of his assistants.
The debate occasioned a first in the annals of the Ohio State Bar Association. Never before
had a woman taken an active part in the floor deliberations. But, Mrs. Jessie Adler of Cincinnati
had an opinion and she expressed it clearly and cogently. She agreed substantially with Judge
Vickery‘s position, but she suggested that the bar examination be made more difficult. Her plan
was to have a day-long examination in each subject rather than the then current two-day test.
Allen Andrews moved that the matter be referred back to the committee with instructions to
take the proposal to the Supreme Court and discuss it with the judges rather than presumptuously
laying down a fixed set of rules to the Court. The motion carried but, unfortunately, the standards
were destined to remain for awhile as they had been.
One hundred thirteen new members were admitted at Cedar Point. Prominent among the list
of neophytes were: John A. Eldon of Cleveland who, six years later, became President of the
Association; Hal H. Griswold of Chardon, who would later serve as Speaker of the Ohio House
of Representatives; Thomas J. Herbert of Cleveland, a future Attorney General and Governor of
Ohio, and a member of the state Supreme Court; Stanley Matthews of Cincinnati, who would
serve for many years on the First District Court of Appeals; Robert T. Scott of Cambridge,
whose name would become a legend in the legislative halls and watering places of Columbus
because of his lobbying activities in behalf of the coal mine operators; Clyde C. Sherrick of
Ashland, who would also become an appellate judge; and Archibald H. Throckmorton of
Cleveland, a member of the faculty of Western Reserve University Law School, who became an
authority on constitutional law and the editor of Banks-Baldwin‘s Ohio General Code.
The practice of designating an Executive Secretary (which began in 1921) was continued.
Harry F. Bell of Mansfield was appointed by the Executive Committee to serve in that capacity.
His function was to travel the highways and byways of the Buckeye State spreading the gospel of
the Ohio State Bar Association. His travels took him to thirty-seven of the smaller towns in Ohio,
and he secured membership applications from lawyers in 36 of them. In his report he told of
luncheons held twice a month by his Richland County Bar Association, and urged that practice
upon other local groups. In the area of politics he warned all judicial aspirants who were not
members of the Ohio State Bar Association not to waste their time, or his, in contacting him for
support in their campaigns.
An unusual resolution was placed before convention. The conduct of United States Attorney
General Harry H. Daugherty of Ohio was attracting the attention of the Congress and the press in
Washington. Daugherty‘s friend, former President Daniel W. Iddings, rallied to his defense with
the following resolution:
―Whereas the incumbent Attorney General of these United States is, and has been for many
years an active, influential member of this Association and known personally to many of us, who
prize his friendship, admire his ability and are cognizant of his integrity; and,
Whereas the Bar of Ohio, and this Association have been signally honored in the choice of
Honorable Harry M. Daugherty, as head of the Federal Department of Justice; and
Whereas certain propaganda has been made in Congress and in the press tending to discount
and discredit the services and character of Mr. Daugherty; therefore,
Be it Resolved by the Ohio State Bar Association in annual meeting that we pledge our faith
anew in Harry M. Daugherty, our fellow member, the man, the lawyer, and the cabinet member.‖
The resolution was carried after being seconded by Judge Paul J. Jones of Youngstown. The
judge had been a member of Coach Fielding H. Yost‘s famous ―Point-a-Minute‖ teams at the
University of Michigan at the turn of the century. He was later appointed to the United States
District Court in Cleveland by President Harding.
The final business of the 43rd Annual Meeting was the election of officers. The hard,
conscientious work of George B. Harris was rewarded with his election to the presidency. J. L.
W. Henney and John F. Carlisle were re-elected to the offices of Secretary and Treasurer,
respectively.
The Idea of a Judicial Council
The 1923 mid-winter meeting was convened in the Deshler Hotel in Columbus on January 26
by Dr. w. O. Thompson, the President of The Ohio State University, who delivered the
invocation and addressed the assembled lawyers on the aims and objects of law schools. Like his
successor, George W. Rightmire, Thompson stressed the importance of character and educational
requirements as prerequisites for admission to the bar.
President George B. Harris began a practice which has been renewed in recent years—he
invited delegates from other state bar associations to attend the gathering. Representatives
attended from George, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. Invitations also had been extended to local
bar associations in Ohio to send delegates. Thirty-eight county bar groups responded.
The principal subject for discussion at the mid-winter meeting was what changes, if any,
should be made in the nomination and election of judges. The President said it was the most
important topic of current interest, and he made it the theme of his address. Harris offered
statistics to show that the Ohio Supreme Court, made up of judges elected for relatively short
terms, ranked twenty-third in the nation in the number of times its decisions were cited in briefs
in other states. Furthermore, of all the large industrial, commercial or agricultural states, our
court‘s decisions were cited as authority the least number of times. Conversely, the high courts
of Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania where the judges were either appointed (as in the
first case) or elected for long terms (as in the other two) were cited most frequently. The
President cited a horrible example of the elective system for judges that took place in Cuyahoga
County in 1914—in the contest for Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, a layman received
more votes than either Chief Justice Nichols or his major opponent, Judge Taggart.
The discussion on the subject, following President Harris‘s speech, produced some interesting
ideas. Simeon M. Johnson advocated a penalty for judicial candidates for soliciting votes or
campaigning for the office. Two men, N. R. Harrington of Bowling Green and J. Warren Kyte of
Troy, believed that sound-thinking electors would be willing to leave the selection of judges to
the lawyers. In response to the suggestion of several speakers that the bar should take a more
active part, D. F. Anderson of Youngstown said that a bar association recommendation would
defeat a candidate, and the present system drew no complaints in Mahoning County. After
extended debate, the subject was tabled.
President Harris made another point in his speech. He called for the creation of a judicial
council to be composed of nine members, three of whom would be from the Supreme Court,
three others would be members of the bar chosen by the President of the Association, and the
other three would be the Chief Justice of the Court of appeals and the Presidents of the Common
Pleas and Probate Judges Associations. The council would make recommendations to the
Governor for improvement in the state‘s court system. That suggestion later came to fruition, and
Harris served on the Council for many years.
Other noteworthy matters that developed at the mid-winter meeting were: the establishment of
a prosecutors‘ section to be open only to those prosecuting attorneys who were members of the
Ohio State Bar Association; agreement to sponsor a bill to require contracts to pay real estate
commissions to be in writing; agreement to back legislation to authorize suits ex contractu
against the state; tabling the proposal for the statutory organization of the state bar; adopting a
resolution recommended by the American Bar Association Judicial Section decrying the
tendency of lawyers, bankers merchants, manufacturers and social leaders to disobey the
Prohibition laws, and placing the Ohio State Bar Association on record in favor of enforcement
of the law and opposed to anarchy and organized disobedience to the law in any form. On that
high note, the meeting adjourned.
***
It was back to Cedar Point for the Annual Meeting on July 10, 1923. President George B.
Harris, after announcing that he had appointed an Executive Secretary who was devoting his full
time to the work of the Association, made a significant disclosure—through the courtesy of the
Supreme Court, permanent headquarters had been made available to the Bar Association in the
State House.
Having spent much of his life in and around the political arena, it was not surprising that
President Harris was able to announce several successful activities in that area. A joint meeting
of the Executive committee, Legislation Committee, and Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee had been held, at which bills of interest to the profession were debated, and
positions taken either for or against them. These positions were then vigorously lobbied at the
General Assembly. As a part of that joint meeting, the lawyer members of the legislature were
entertained at dinner at the Deshler Hotel, and several of them joined the Association. The
wisdom of this effort was reflected in the President‘s report, noting that the legislature had
passed a bill creating the Judicial Council, which the Governor vetoed and the legislature
promptly passed over his veto.
The long-discussed memorial to Salmon P. Chase became a reality. President Harris
announced in his speech that he had attended the dedicatory exercises at Spring Grove Cemetery
in Cincinnati on Decoration Day, as a representative of the Ohio State Bar Association.
The President had the sad duty to report that the higher standards of legal education long
advocated by the Association had been rejected by Governor A. V. Donahey when he vetoed a
bill requiring law school attendance for future applicants for admission to the bar. Nationally,
however, legal education took a step forward. President Harris reported that he had attended a
meeting in Washington at which the American Law Institute was organized, financed by the
Carnegie Foundation. The Institute‘s Director was William Draper Lewis, former Dean of the
Law School of the University of Pennsylvania. Its purpose was to prepare a restatement of the
law in the interests of clarity, simplicity, and uniformity.
Treasurer John Carlisle‘s report contained two record-breaking entries. First, the membership
stood at 1,746, the highest in history. Second, the gross income was in five figures for the first
time. It was $10,964.58.
The appointment of an Executive Secretary by President Harris early in his term was already
producing results. Bulletins reporting the content of bills enacted into law were circulated to the
membership. Constant contact was maintained with members of the General Assembly for the
purpose of explaining the Association‘s position on bills. Appearances were made before
legislative committees and before the Governor to explain the Association‘s views on bills which
had reached his desk. Moreover, Executive Secretary Robert C. Mason had established effective
contact with the new media, with the result that over 2,000 stories about the Ohio State Bar
Association appeared in Ohio newspapers during the year.
New members in 1923 included: a future president of both Ohio State and American Bar
Associations, Howard L. Barkdull of Cleveland; a future Attorney General and Governor of
Ohio and United States Senator, John W. Bricker of Columbus; Lisle M. Buckingham, one of the
founders of a prominent Akron firm; Walter T. Dunmore of Cleveland, the long time Dean of the
Western Reserve University Law School; Harry L. Eastman of Cleveland, who, as judge of the
Juvenile Court in Cuyahoga County, did much to build a firm foundation for that part of the Ohio
judicial system; Marshall G. Fenton of Chillicothe, who became Secretary and Treasurer of the
Association; and John M. McCabe of Toledo, who would serve as president of the Association
three years later.
The report of the Executive Committee confirmed the fact that the committee was assuming a
larger roll in the affairs of the Association. Among other things, the group considered the
possibility of holding the Annual Meeting on a cruise shop on the Great Lakes but rejected it.
The committee had received from President Harris his draft of a proposed new constitution,
which would establish closer relations with the local bar association, and provide greater
continuity in the management of the affairs of the Association.
The Committee on Grievances reported the receipt of several complaints, which were fully
discussed at the convention. One of the complaints involved a claim by a New Yorker who said
that he had entrusted money to an Ohio lawyer to invest in an oil exploration proposition. In his
complaint, the New Yorker stated that to turn the matter over to an attorney would do no good
since only a ―shyster‖ would take a case against another attorney. The committee found no
ground for the complaint, and informed the New Yorker that the country was full of honorable
lawyers, among whom he could find one to press his grievance with vigor and that justice would
be done.
George W. Rightmire with dogged determination again pressed for two years of college
education or the equivalent. He received an assist from a newly admitted member, Walter T.
Dunmore of Cleveland. Dunmore stated that when his law school at Western Reserve University
imposed an academic training requirement as a condition of admission, the enrollment increased.
That statement appeared to be the clincher, for the Rightmire report was accepted and approved
with the instruction that the matter be presented to the Supreme Court.
Small attention was given to one item in the meeting of the Prosecutor‘s Section. It was a
speech on the Taft taxation bill which had just been enacted by the legislature. The author was a
new member of the Association, Robert A. Taft of Cincinnati. He had undertaken a
comprehensive revision of the Ohio intangible tax law in his capacity as a State Senator. It is
virtually the same law that we have today, and the fact that it has survived for more than fifty
years is evidence of the skill and capacity for hard work of the man who became known as ―Mr.
Republican.‖
The social side of the convention featured esthetic dancing and music on the first night. The
featured vocalist was the wife of President George B. Harris. The toastmaster at the banquet was
an Ohio lawyer who had become a national figure, Newton D. Baker of Cleveland, the former
Secretary of War. As a nostalgic touch, the convention visitors were taken on a steamboat
excursion to Put-in-Bay, the site of many previous annual meetings.
Essays in International Law
Not since the days of William McKinley had a governor of Ohio participated in a meeting of
the Ohio State Bar Association; but when the Buckeye barristers gathered at the Deshler Hotel in
Columbus on January 24, 1924, they were welcomed by Governor A. V. Donahey. Although he
denied any intention of making a speech, Donahey proceeded to advocate uniform state laws as
well as uniformity in the procedural statutes relating to municipal courts. He urged the lawyers to
work with the Ohio Judicial Council in order that the high purposes of that organization might be
achieved for the benefit of the state. These were encouraging words from the man who had
vetoed the bill creating the Judicial Council, making it necessary for bar leaders to get it passed
over his veto.
The presidential address of William L. Hart contained a number of definitions of justice which
are well worth repeating. He quoted Justinian‘s description of justice as the set and constant
purpose which gives to every man his due. The precepts of the law are these, ―to live honorably,
to injury no one, and to give every man his due.‖ Hart also mentioned Alexander Hamilton‘s
statement in the Federalists Papers, ―Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil
society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained or until liberty is lost in the
pursuit.‖
John A. Cline of Cleveland, Chairman of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee, presented a lengthy report. Concurring with the suggestions of the Governor and
President Hart, the committee called for a uniform municipal court act to replace the separate and
varying statutes creating and governing the state‘s seventeen municipal courts. The committee
noted that banks, trust companies, mortgage and discount companies and real estate agencies
were practicing law for hire, and assigned to one of its members the task of drafting a bill to cure
this evil. The disparities in salaries and length of terms of judges were a matter of concern. Cline
reported that Chief Justice Wanamaker of the Ohio Supreme Court was receiving an annual
salary of $6,500 while his associates were receiving $8,500 per year. Similar differentials
prevailed in the other courts of the state. This fact was traceable to the constitutional prohibition
against increasing or decreasing salaries during the term for which the official was elected. The
Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee requested the Association to prepare and
sponsor a constitutional amendment under the initiative provision to equalize judicial salaries
and extend the terms to ten years. The committee also drafted a bill to provide for a judicial
ballot on which the candidate‘s political affiliation, age, education, and experience would be
listed after his name. As a precaution, the bill provided that any candidate who supplied false
information for the ballot would be guilty of perjury.
To help promote local bar associations and coordinate their activities with those of the Ohio
State Bar Association, a Conference of Bar Association Delegates was created at the mid-winter
meeting of 1924. It was granted status as a section of the Association pursuant to an amendment
to the Association‘s Constitution. Its membership included five delegates from the Ohio State
Bar association, three from each local association with one additional delegate for each 200
members of the local association. George B. Harris, who had actively promoted the idea, was
elected as the first chairman of the Conference.
That the Ohio State Bar Association was interested in international affairs was evidenced by
the action it took on a resolution offered by the former Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker of
Cleveland. He proposed that the Association should express support for the Permanent Court of
International Justice. Baker had unsuccessfully advocated American entry into the League of
Nations. Being an astute politicians and mindful of the troubles he and his allies had run into
with isolationist Republicans in the United States Senate, Baker carefully delineated the
Republican origin and sponsorship of the peace court idea. He said that it was the outgrowth of
proposals made by John Hay, Secretary of State under William McKinley, and Elihu Root.
Secretary of State under both McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. More recently, American
participation in the Court had been recommended by Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin
Coolidge, and by the current Secretary of State, Charles Evans Hughes. Baker‘s resolution was
then discussed by Manley O. Hudson, Professor of International Law at Harvard Law School.
Baker and Hudson evidently were convincing, for the resolution was approved and copies were
ordered to be sent to the President of the United States and Ohio‘s two senators.
President Hart was granted a privilege not usually enjoyed by an Association President. He
welcomed his son, Ian Bruce Hart of Canton, to membership at the mid-winter gathering of the
bar. Other new members admitted on that occasion were Robert P. Goldman of Cincinnati, who
devoted many years of faithful service to the Ohio bar, Charles W. Racine of Toledo, who
became president of the Association in 1935, and John M. Vorys of Columbus, who served for
many years in Congress.
***
Because of a conflict in dates with the convention of the American Bar Association, the 46th
Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association was not held until the end of August, 1924.
The Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point was again the scene of the convention. In his annual address,
president Hart recalled the speech of the first president, Rufus P. Ranney, in which he urged high
educational requirements as a condition precedent to admission to the bar. Hart strongly
endorsed the idea, and said that it would inevitably raise the moral and ethical standards of the
applicants. The failure to raise the standards had enabled what Hart called ―rogues‖ to enter the
profession and use it as a ―get-rich‖ opportunity.
President Hart said that at the outset of his term he had set three goals: to obtain 500 new
members; to coordinate the county bar associations with the state association; and to render
service to the members through an efficient central office in Columbus. He was able to report
that 432 new members had joined during the year and that the income of the state bar exceeded
$11,000. There were now active bar associations in eighty counties. The Conference of Bar
Association Delegates was fully operative and well on the way to carrying out the second
objective. The office in the State House was functioning smoothly, and the Secretary was
answering numerous requests from the membership.
The report of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee noted an advance
toward suppression of the unauthorized practice of law. J. R. Nutt, President of the Union Trust
company and a former Treasurer of the Republican National Committee, had issued a directive
to all employees of his bank informing them that they were not to refer customers to the legal
department for advice or other legal service because the bank had no right to practice law, and
the bank‘s attorneys were too busy to handle customers‘ private legal work.
The most important matter for consideration by the convention was the report of a Special
Committee on Increasing Dues, whose members were Louis H. Winch of Cleveland, C. B. Hunt
of Coshocton, and W. W. Cowan of St. Clairsville. The dues had remained at $2 per year from
1880 until 1818, when they were increased to $5. The special committee disclosed that it had
been necessary to solicit contributions to pay the $3,000 salary of the Secretary, and also stated
that a questionnaire had been sent to the membership concerning the possible publication of a
weekly digest of Supreme Court filings and decisions, and although the response was favorable
the project would be impossible without a dues increase. The recommendation was that the
annual dues be set at $10. Action was deferred until the following day when, on the motion of
George B. Harris, the Constitution was amended to fix the annual dues at $7.
Among the new members affiliating with the Association at the Annual Meeting of 1924 were
two future Association presidents, Benjamin C. Boer of Cleveland and Paul C. Weick of Akron.
Habitués of the State House in Columbus will quickly recognize two other names in the list:
Frank W. Whittemore of Akron, who as a state senator authored the act allowing deferred
payment of real estate taxes in the depression years; and Ed D. Schorr of Cincinnati, a powerful
lobbyist and long-time chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Ohio. Howard L.
Bevis of Cincinnati, who became president of The Ohio State University and judge of the Ohio
Supreme Court, also joined in 1924.
The First Budget and the Weekly Bulletin
Following the first World War there was a popular song, ―How‘re you going to keep ‗em
down on the farm after they‘ve seen Paree?‖ by 1925, lawyer-veterans of the Great War were
beginning to assume positions of leadership in the Ohio Bar. Many had seen ―Paree‖ and their
thoughts and interests were no longer oriented toward the farms of rural county seats of the
Buckeye State.
The meeting was held at Cleveland‘s Hollenden House, and the opening session was devoted
to the organization of a Military Law Section. According to the advance program, it was made up
of members of the bar who had served as officers in the Judge Advocate General‘s Department
of the Fifth Army Corps. An amendment to the Association‘s Constitution was adopted creating
the Military Section and opening its membership to all attorneys who belonged to the
Association. The principal speaker for the section meeting was Col. C. D. Rhodes of Columbus,
who had commanded Ohio‘s ―Rainbow‖ Division.
The Association entered another new field, by adopting a proposal by H. W. Thomas of
Cleveland for the appointment of a committee to study the problems involved in the practice of
foreign law and international private law and to cooperate with the Comparative Law Bureau of
the American Bar Association.
The Legislation Committee had secured a sponsor for its resolution to amend Article IV of the
Ohio Constitution, to provide for equalization of judicial salaries and longer terms for judges.
The sponsor was Representative Thomas L. Tallentire of Cincinnati, a member of the
Association, but his efforts were for naught—the resolution, which permitted salaries to be
increased during the term for which a judge was elected, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee
of the 86th General Assembly.
The Ohio Judicial Council was beginning to function. Under the leadership of Chief Justice
Carrington T. Marshall, the Council had studied many reform measures, among which were: the
formulation of rules of practice and procedure in the courts; the granting of full rule-making
power to the courts; the possibility of limiting or abolishing grand juries; the unification of the
courts of the state; and nonpartisan nomination and election of judges. The Chief Justice pointed
out that business organizations in America were the miracle of modern times, because highly
trained experts and statisticians were constantly studying the problems of organization and
efficiency. On the other hand, he said, American had been the most backward of all in seeking
improvements in the administration of justice. It was time for something to be done, and
Marshall believed that the methods used in business should be applied to the court system. He
argued for an appropriation from the legislature to finance the work of the Council.
The indefatigable George W. Rightmire reported again for the Committee on Legal
Education. His group continued to advocate two years of college work, or the equivalent,, as a
prerequisite to the study of law. In 19232, the Association had approved this recommendation by
a three to one margin, according to Rightmire. Included in that measure was a direction to take
the matter to the Supreme Court. This had not been done, but the Chairman promised he would
do so.
Disciplinary proceedings received the attention of both the Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee, and the Conference of Bar Association Delegates. George B. Harris offered
a resolution calling for the reprimand of any attorney who violated the Canons of Legal Ethics,
promulgated by the American Bar Association and approved by the Ohio State Bar Association.
The resolution also called for an amendment to the disbarment statute to provide that suspension
of disbarment of an attorney by any court would be effective in all courts of the state. The
resolution was not adopted, but was referred to the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee. Undiscouraged, Harris moved that the association reaffirm its belief in the Canons of
Legal Ethics, and the motion carried unanimously.
A new subject came up for discussion at the 1925 Mid-Winter Meeting: municipal zoning.
The U.S. Supreme Court had approved the principle in Amber Realty Co. v. Euclid in 1921. the
case arose in Cuyahoga County and so there was great local interest. Two reform-minded
Cincinnatians, Alfred Bettman and Robert P. Goldman, spoke in favor of municipal zoning, and
W. F. Guthrie opposed it. Curiously, reformers of today are now opposing the practice.
President John A. Cline addressed the convention and recited the numerous reforms that had
been accomplished through the efforts of the legal profession. He suggested that further reforms
were needed, among which were: eliminating ―third degree‖ or ―sweat box‖ brutalities by police
officers; obviating the necessity of a grand jury indictment where a criminal is willing to enter a
guilty plea; and establishing statewide courts of conciliation without monetary limitations. The
president also decried the activities of the justices of the peace in liquor cases. Said Cline, ―…
the enforcement of no law should be made a source of profit or gain to any individual charged
with the enforcement of it.‖
For the first time in its 45-year history the Ohio State Bar Association adopted a budget. The
first budget showed estimated income of $16,100, all from dues. Projected expenditures totaled
$15,100, leaving a $1,000 surplus. One estimated cost was $5,000 for the Weekly Bulletin,
which was the predecessor of the Ohio Bar Report, the publication which is unique to the Ohio
State Bar Association (no other similar organization has the cases from its highest court on the
desk of its members within a week of the time that the decisions are announced). The old Weekly
Bulletin contained news of Supreme Court cases, reports on the status of bills in the legislature,
and other items of interest to the bar. The idea had been suggested by George W. Ritter nearly
ten years before, but it remained for President Cline, Secretary Henney, and the Executive
Committee to make the publication a reality. W. G. Pickrel of Dayton, Chairman of the
Executive Committee said, ―I know that the Executive Committee will agree with me when I say
that John L. W. Henney is the one who is entitled to the credit for all the good there is in the
Bulletin. He had worked with it and worked hard. His efforts have been crowned with success
and we congratulate him.‖
The Weekly Bulletin had been started on an experimental basis as a service to the members in
October, 1924. The experiment continued until the 1925 Mid-Winter Meeting,, and the lawyers
were so enthusiastic over the new publication that they agreed it should be a permanent part of
the Association‘s program. Thus, 1925 goes down in history as one of the most important years
in the history of the legal profession in Ohio.
***
It was back to Cedar Point for the 46th Annual Meeting on July 9, 1925.
W. G. Thompson, Chairman of the Admissions committee, nominated eighty-three lawyers
for membership. The Legislation Committee reported that nine of the eighteen measures
endorsed by the Association and introduced in the legislature had been enacted into law. Senator
L. L. Marshall of Cuyahoga County, who later served in the Congress, handled the nine bills that
passed.
The General Assembly leadership had indicated that it wished to pass as few bills as possible,
but nevertheless 800 bills were introduced and 231 became law. Judge Manuel Levine, Chairman
of the Committee on Uniform State Laws, endorsed the position of the legislative leaders. He
noted that in 1925 there were 500,000 state laws and 5,000,000 municipal ordinances for the
citizens of the United States to obey. ―We must hurl ourselves with all our strength against this
avalanche of laws threatening us.‖ Levine told the assembled barristers.
A new committee made its appearance at the 1925 Cedar Point meeting. The charge to the
new group was ―to disseminate knowledge of our form of government and especially our
Constitution … and to build up among coming generations … a reverence for and knowledge of
that instrument.‖ The Committee, known as the Americanization Committee, was also directed
to send representatives into every Ohio county to see that Constitution Day was properly
observed each year.
Legal aid was considered for the first time in 1925. The Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee presented a recommendation that the President appoint a special committee
to study the problem of providing legal assistance and protection to Ohio citizens who were
financially unable to employ a private attorney. The recommendation was accepted, and a
committee was named consisting of Robert A. Taft and Robert P. Goldman of Cincinnati,
George W. Rightmire of Columbus, Frank H. Gear of Toledo, Claude E. Clarke and Judge
Manuel Levine of Cleveland, and J. C. Grimm of Akron. The appointment of Clarke was
particularly noteworthy, since he and his partner, J. Milton Costello, operated the Cleveland
Legal Aid Society for many years, and both men were active in national legal aid circles.
The appointment of Robert A. Taft to the Legal Aid group marked his first committee
assignment in the Ohio State Bar Association.
President John A. Cline of Cleveland noted with pride that the docket of the Supreme Court of
Ohio was clear. To illustrate the new dispatch in disposing of business, he cited a case which
threatened to tie up all of the state‘s highway construction funds. The case was docketed, argued,
and decided, and the opinion written in just four days, and highway construction was saved.
Treasurer John F. Carlisle‘s report was his swan song. He had first been elected to that office
in 1918, and now it was time for him to retire. His retirement prompted some comparisons. In
1918 there were 1,089 members at $2 per man per year, and in 1925 there were 2,042 members
at $7 per man per year. In his first year, Carlisle issued forty-nine checks to pay Association
bills. By 1925, the number of checks had jumped to 229, but the Treasurer‘s salary remained at
$300. The appreciation of the membership was expressed to Carlisle by a rising vote of thanks.
Municipal Reform
The 1926 Mid-Winter Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association convened in Cincinnati, the
home of President Province M. Pogue, on January 28. An address of welcome was delivered by a
member of the Association, Murray Seasongood, the Mayor of Cincinnati, who spoke in glowing
terms of a new city, operating under a new charter and a government of its citizens.
Seasongood was proud of Cincinnati and had a right to be. In 1920 he and a group of young
professionals representing many of the city‘s first families organized the Cincinnatus
Association. The Republican Party machine had been in power so long it had become lax in
administering public affairs, and the city was deteriorating. Seasongood and his followers
launched a vigorous campaign against a tax levy proposed by the city administration in 1923.
During the course of the fall canvass they suggested a revision of the city government, which
would include the abolition of the mayor-council form and its replacement with a city manager
and nine-member council elected at large on a proportionate representation ballot.
The Seasongood group not only defeated the levy, but five other bond issues as well.
Heartened by this success, the Cincinnatus Association took on the Republican organization the
following year and secured the passage of a charter amendment calling for the city-manager
form of municipal government. This action had an interesting side effect; it split the politicallypowerful Taft family. Robert A. Taft was then a member of the legislature, having been placed
there by the Republican organization, and he remained loyal to the party. His brother, Charles,
felt no such loyalty and cast his lot with the reformers.
Seasongood reported that in the previous fall‘s election four members of his reform group
who had been elected to the council were lawyers, and two of those lawyers had served as
common pleas judges. He closed his remarks with a persuasive argument for the existence of any
bar association. Citing the massive workload under which lawyers, judges and public officials
labor, he said that it does not give them time to think, ―And, it is associations of this character
that do the thinking, that take the time and do the thinking, to see if our methods of
accomplishment cannot be improved.‖
W. G. Thompson of Lebanon reported for the Admissions Committee. It was evident that
President Pogue had inspired his fellow lawyers to wage a vigorous membership drive in his
home city, since fifty-four, or more than half of the new members, were from the Queen City.
The list included many names prominent in the bar of Hamilton County: Joseph C. Dinsmore;
John D. Ellis; Henry G. Frost; Joseph S. Graydon; Frank r. Gusweiler; Simon L. Leis; and
Charles Sawyer. Another neophyte was Roscoe R. Walcutt of Columbus who, as a state senator,
helped to carry the Bar Association‘s legislative program through the General Assembly in the
1940‘s and early 1950‘s.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee reported that the law‘s delays were
not unknown in the Ohio Supreme Court, and that progress was being made in the trial courts.
The report noted, ―The system of assigning trial judges from the smaller counties to the more
populous centers is giving the highest degree of satisfaction, affording work to judges who
would otherwise be unemployed and aiding those where the volume of business imperatively
demands assistance.‖
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee also commended the Supreme
Court for adopting a measure long advocated by the Association—raising the standards for
admission to the bar by requiring two years of college work before entering on the study of law.
Full credit was given to Chief Justice Carrington t. Marshall for his untiring energy, leadership,
zeal and high ideals in accomplishing these important achievements.
The problem of the uninsured motorist was vexing the bar and the public. Automobile
accidents were proliferating, and the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee
proposed a bill for submission to the legislature making it a condition precedent to the issuance
of a registration or a license for a motor vehicle that the applicant have in force a $5,000
insurance policy, covering liability and property damage. It would be a long time, however,
before Ohio would adopt a financial responsibility act.
A new committee held its organizational meeting during the mid-winter session—the
Committee to Assist the American Law Institute, with Reuel A. Lang of Cleveland as Chairman.
The American Law Institute had been organized two years before, and had received a grant of
$1,075,000 from the Carnegie Foundation for the purpose of promoting certainty and simplicity
in the law, particularly the common law. This would be accomplished by the publication of
restatements of the law of judicial decisions in the United States. Tentative restatements of part
of the subjects of contracts, conflict of laws, and torts were already available and had been
publicized in the Ohio State Bar Weekly Bulletin. The initial response was disappointing—
lawyers who relied on the restatements in their law school days in the 1930‘s and 1940‘s will be
surprised to learn that the tentative drafts were offered in 1925 and 1926 at 50 cents each, but
that less than fifty copies of each draft were sold in those years.
***
It was off to Cedar Point in July for the 47th Annual Meeting.
When the committee reports were called, Reuel A. Long, reporting for the Committee to
Assist the American Law Institute, was obviously discouraged. At the mid-winter meeting he
had asked for constructive suggestions for the restatements and had reported their poor sales
record. Apparently, Ohio lawyers were unimpressed, for Lang acknowledged that very few
copies of the restatements had been ordered since, and very few suggestions for material to be
included in future volumes had been received.
Chief Justice Carrington T. Marshall presented the report of the Judicial Council. He, too,
expressed frustration. The Council had plans and ideas, but could not carry them out for lack of
funds with which to hire a secretary to do the drafting. He called on those present to use their
influence with the legislature, to the end that an appropriation adequate to properly fund the Ohio
Judicial Council be made.
A most significant and far-reaching report was presented by E. J. Marshall of Toledo,
Chairman of the Committee on the Codification of the Ohio Corporation Laws, which had been
constituted at the mid-winter meeting in Cincinnati. Complaints had been mounting about the
woeful condition of the Ohio corporation laws: they had no orderly sequence; there were
numerous conflicting provisions; and many of the sections had long since outlived their
usefulness. Among other deficiencies were: the absence of the provision for a vice president or
an executive committee; a requirement that a corporation could only pursue a single purpose; and
a requirement that corporate mortgages of both real and personal property be filed as chattel
mortgages and refilled every three years. A tentative draft of a bill to correct these and other
defects was prepared.
The presidential election brought out three candidates: John M. McCabe of Toledo; Clarence
D. Laylin of Columbus; and Judge Charles B. Hunt of Coshocton. McCabe emerged the winner.
John L. W. Henney and Marshall G. Fenton were re-elected Secretary and Treasurer,
respectively.
Modernizing the Corporation Laws
President John M. McCabe welcomed the members of the Ohio State Bar Association to his
home town of Toledo for the mid-winter meeting in January of 1927.
The Executive Committee noted that it was holding as few meetings as possible, and that its
chief concerns were membership and dues. A solicitor had been hired, and he was paid $4 for
each new member obtained, $1.50 for a single year of delinquent dues collected, and $2.50 for
collecting dues delinquent more than one years. It turned out to be a wise move—147 lawyers
were elected to membership, and delinquent dues were substantially reduced. The new members
included two future presidents of the Association, Waymon B. McLeskey of Columbus and
George W. Spooner of Cleveland, and four men whose names were later to be included in the
style of prominent law firm, Fred E. Fuller of Toledo, John Harlor and W. Glover Porter of
Columbus, and Francis D. Schnacke of Dayton. Also included was a long-time member of the
Ohio Senate, E. E. Addison of Columbus.
It has been stated in this book that the Ohio State Bar Association has contributed more for the
benefit of the citizens of Ohio than any similar organization. In 1927 hard evidence to support
that statement was abundant. The corporation law of Ohio, first enacted in 1846, was a confusing
patchwork of anachronistic, unworkable measures. The Special Committee on Codification of
the Corporation Laws appointed by President Province M. Pogue in 1926 went to work in
earnest. It was chaired by E. J. Marshall of Toledo, and serving with him were Paul J. Bickel of
Cleveland, Harry S. Ballard of Columbus, Edwin W. Brouse of Akron, Charles Follett of
Cleveland and Province M. Pogue and F. F. Dinsmore, both of Cincinnati. Wisely, the
Committee solicited the views of a broad spectrum of the business, banking, education and legal
communities of Ohio. Meetings had been held in Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Toledo.
In Columbus, S. E. Forney (Chairman of the Tax Commission), Cyrus Locker (Director of
Commerce), Charles Baird (Assistant Secretary of State), and H. H. Griswold (Assistant
Attorney General) had attended the meeting. Also present had been representatives of the Ohio
Farm Bureau Federation, the Ohio Bankers Association, and other trade groups.
When the Committee‘s draft was completed it, was referred to the Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee for review, and that committee submitted its report at the mid-winter
meeting. The major drafting work had been done by the Special Committee, and John A. Cline,
Chairman of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee let out all stops in
praising the draft: ―This code … is not the result of the thought of a few leaders of the bar, but is
the consummate judgment of the rank and file of the bar of Ohio, and the work is presented to
the Association and to the state of Ohio as the painstaking, carefully considered and able
judgment of the entire bar, and it is with great pride we will present this work to the legislature
for its consideration, for we believe it is one of the finest and best considered pieces of
legislation pertaining to corporations which this country has ever seen.‖
The proposed corporation code was endorsed by the Association, and was subsequently
adopted by the Ohio General assembly with few changes. Here was a concerted effort by the
Ohio State Bar Association to promote the public interest. It represented countless hours of
unrecompensed labor and study by lawyers from the big cities and small towns of Ohio. That
their work fulfilled the prediction of former President John A. Cline, is evidenced by the fact that
the code remained on the statute books of Ohio from 1927 until 1955, with only a few
intervening amendments. Coincidentally, it was Paul J. Bickel, a member of the original Special
Committee, who pulled the laboring oar in the preparation of the comprehensive revision of the
act in 1955. Representative Kenneth M. Berry of Coshocton guided the amendatory bill through
the General Assembly. Berry later served on the Executive Committee of the Ohio State Bar
Association.
President John M. McCabe joined in the praise of the Special Committee and its chairman,
when in his annual address, he said ―… let me pause here to pay tribute to … Hon. Edwin J.
Marshall, who has given unreservedly of his time, ability and money to make this work a
complete success—a learned lawyer, a profound thinker, a powerful, energetic worker. He has
given all, so that the Ohio State Bar Association might make a real contribution to the laws of
Ohio,‖
McCabe said that the Association could not stop with this one great achievement. Another
area of great concern was the criminal law. ―The slow, almost glacier-like processes of the law
and the possibility of acquittal in many instances has made the criminal bold,‖ the President
stated. He laid part of the blame on the news media and, ―its sordid and sensational interpretation
of the evidence.‖ This sensational material was bound to reach jurors in criminal trials and
influence them in their deliberations, McCabe said. Charging that the power wielded by the press
is more to be feared than the fighting strength of a million bayonets, McCabe called on the media
to create and encourage in the public mind a proper respect for, and human interest in the courts,
judges and lawyers.
The subject of the annual report of the proceedings of the Ohio State Bar Associations
received considerable attention at the mid-winter meeting. The proceedings of every year from
1880 through 1924 had been printed and bound, but the records of the meetings of 1925 and
1926 had not. William G. Pickrel reported that the expense of printing and binding enough
volumes of the reports for each member, as well as for libraries, law schools and bar
associations, was no longer financially feasible. In order to test the market, however, a letter was
sent to each of the more than 2,300 members with a postcard enclosed requesting the member to
sign and mail the card if he wanted a copy of the report for 1924 (that had been the last printed
and bound volume, since the budgets for 1925 and 1926 did not allow for publication). Only 300
members had responded, and the recommendation of the Executive Committee was that further
printing of the reports be deferred until an increase in dues could be approved by the
membership. One of the elder statesmen of the State Bar, Simeon M. Johnson, who was
president in 1912, rallied to the defense of the reports. He vigorously urged that publication be
continued. His influence apparently was still strong for the Executive committee was directed to
conduct another poll of the membership and furnish copies of the report to all those indicating a
desire to have one. Nevertheless, the knell of the reports had been rung.
A matter of great concern in the 1920‘s was the use of justices of the peace and mayor‘s
courts to enforce the prohibition laws. The report of the Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee strongly condemned the magistrates of these courts, who, they alleged, were
engaging in highly questionable activities. An Ohio statute, the ―Crabbe Act,‖ conferred
countywide jurisdiction on mayor‘s courts and justices of the peace in liquor cases, and as a
result police officers quickly learned where to take their cases if they wanted a conviction. In the
language of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee Report, ―small town
mayors and justices of the peace, for gain, have violated the constitutional rights and liberties of
the public, and … have mulcted the people under color of law …‖ It should be noted that
constables and magistrates then received fees based on arrests and convictions.
Although there was a strong demand for abolition of justices of the peace, the Committee said
that most of the squires conducted themselves properly and served a useful purpose. As an
alternative, the Committee recommended that the jurisdiction of the courts in question be limited
to the political subdivision in which the mayor or justice of the peace was elected.
An interesting sidelight brought this situation into focus in Cuyahoga County, and George H.
Bender was in the middle of it. Bender later became the Republican County Chairman and
served in both houses of the United States Congress, but in 1927 he was a member of the Ohio
Senate. He was a teetotaler, and consistently supported dry legislation. He resided in Cleveland
Heights, and on the basis of an anonymous letter a warrant was issued out of the justice of the
peace court in East Cleveland to search Bender‘s home for liquor. Without prior inquiry of any
kind, a party of raiders left their own jurisdiction and went to Cleveland Heights. Two of them
entered Bender‘s home, searched it from top to bottom and, of course, found no liquor. It was an
obvious attempt to embarrass Bender politically, and he immediately sued the justice of the
peace and the members of the raiding party for damages. The case reached the Court of Appeals
and that tribunal said that under the circumstances Bender was entitled to at least nominal
damages.
***
The 49th Annual Meeting, and the last one to be chronicled in a special, bound report,
convened at the Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point on July 6, 1927. The program listed a new event
which established a precedent—a luncheon for the alumni of the School of Law of the University
of Cincinnati.
The opening session of the convention was called to order by President John M. McCabe. The
Membership Committee offered the names of 197 applicants, who were duly elected. Prominent
on the list were: Thomas A. Burke, Jr., who served as mayor of Cleveland and was appointed to
fill the unexpired portion of the term of U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft on the latter‘s death; Lynn
B. Griffith of Warren, who became a judge of the Common Pleas Court and the Court of appeals;
Richard H. Hildebrandt of Wilmington who served on the Court of Appeals; James Olds of
Akron, who gave many years of service to the Association and was awarded the Ohio Bar
Medal; W. B. Wanamaker of Akron, who would become a member of the Ohio Supreme Court;
and Abner D. Zook, also of Akron, who served in the Ohio legislature and as a judge of the
Akron Municipal Court.
Chairman E. J. Marshall of the Committee on Revision of Ohio Corporation Laws was able to
report a signal success. The bill drafted by his committee and sponsored in the General Assembly
by Senator Allan G. Aigler and Representative Harry Ball had passed both houses and was
signed by the Governor on March 6, 1927. The first Ohio corporation law had been enacted in
1846; and during the succeeding eighty-one years had become an unworkable patchwork of
amendments. Marshall cautioned the members of the Association not to try to amend the new
law without first submitting their proposed changes to the Association, then suggested that his
committee be made a standing committee in order that it might monitor the new law.
The Committee on Legislation had rendered valuable assistance in securing passage of the
corporation law bill. Having accomplished that task, the Committee directed its efforts toward
the passage of a resolution which called for the creation of a joint House and Senate Committee
to work with a committee of the Ohio State Bar Association to recodify the Ohio criminal law.
The resolution called for the appropriation of $10,000 to cover the expenses of the joint
committee. The resolution passed both houses of the General Assembly, but Governor A. V.
Donahey disapproved of the appropriation and vetoed the measure.
The Legislation Committee concluded that if the important and necessary work of
recodification of the criminal law were to be accomplished, the Association would have to raise
the money itself. The committee‘s recommendation was adopted. Chairman Reuel A. Long of
the American Law Institute Committee said it was safe to prophesy that the Institute‘s completed
restatements of the law would be a second Blackstone, and expressed the hope that the
committee appointed to recodify the criminal law would avail itself of the work of the Institute.
The report of Treasurer Marshall G. Fenton indicated that the Association was prospering
both financially and in new members. Cash in the bank amounted to over $8,500. Total receipts
exceeded $21,000, the highest in the history of the Association. The roster revealed that in spite
of 142 resignations, there were now 2,597 members. Credit for this prosperity was due in a large
measure to the diligent work of Fenton and Secretary J. W. L. Henney, and to the efforts of the
paid solicitors who traveled across Ohio seeking new members. One of these, H. C. Fuller, was
paid $1,149 in commissions.
Those who knew J. L. W. Henney will recall his capacity for work. He knew the meaning of
service to members—it was a watchword in his office. Henney‘s report made it clear that the
members of the Ohio State Bar Association were getting value received for their dues of $7 per
year. The Bar Association Bulletin was increasing in size, and contained reported cases, articles
on propositions of law from other periodicals, and announcements of the availability of
documents. Among the latter (distributed to members) were copies of the Ohio tax laws, the new
corporation law, Ohio road laws, blanks for use in organizing corporations under the new law,
and rosters of the nominees for the legislature. Henney suggested that a small increase in dues
would enable him to increase the services. His suggestion was adopted and the dues went to $8
per year.
The Grievance Committee report was submitted by A. G. Fuller of Findlay, who stated that in
light of the paucity of complaints the membership was entitled to a reputation for strict
professional rectitude. The chief concern of the committee was the revelation that a lawyer might
be disbarred by the federal courts for an offense involving moral turpitude, but unless a separate
action were undertaken against him in the state court he could continue to practice there. The
committee recommended that the statute be amended to provide that disbarment in one court
would automatically suspend the right to practice in the other. Another anomaly was pointed out
by Fuller—disbarment in the federal courts would not terminate the culprit‘s membership in the
Ohio State Bar Association.
A contest for the office of President of the Association developed between Judge Charles B.
Hunt of Coshocton and George B. Sieber of Akron. Hunt prevailed. J. L. W. Henney and
Marshall G. Fenton were re-elected to their offices. The total number of votes cast in the
presidential election was 299, or about 11% of the total membership.
The Debut of the Ohio BAR
A full-page advertisement in the June 26, 1928 issue of the new Ohio BAR magazine heralded
the 49th Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association at Cedar Point. The advertisement,
placed by G. A. Boeckling Co., contained a large photograph of the Breakers Hotel and
mentioned as attractions the cool, airy rooms, ―the finest bathing beach in the world,‖ and every
known up-to-date amusement.
The same issue of the Ohio BAR foretold a contest for the presidency of the Association. It
contained a resolution of the Lawrence County Bar Association endorsing A. R. Johnson of
Ironton for President. An adjoining column reported that at a meeting of the Butler County Bar
Association a motion was passed instructing the delegates from that county to vote for John A.
Elden of Cleveland for President. The Butler County announcement apparently carried more
weight, for when the convention visitors gathered at Cedar Point they elected Elden to the
presidency. Elden must have been confident of election, for he come to the convention prepared
with an acceptance speech in which he stated that the Executive Committee would meet once a
month or more, that meetings would be held around the state in conjunction with local bar
associations, that the Association would live within its budget, that a membership drive would be
held, and that unification of the bar would again be sought.
The new President named himself Chairman of the Membership Committee, and appointed
each member of the Association as a committeeman. The goal was 1,000 new members. Elden
also named a blue-ribbon committee, with Newton D. Baker of Cleveland as chairman, to study
the question of ―unifying‖ the Association, i.e. making membership compulsory for all Ohio
lawyers. Among the bar leaders chosen to serve with Baker were: former President Simeon M.
Johnson of Cincinnati; Paul Howland of Cleveland; former President John M. McCabe and
George W. Ritter, both of Toledo; Warner Pomerance of Coshocton; former President Province
M. Pogue and Dean Merton L. Ferson of Cincinnati; former Presidents John A. Cline and George
B. Harris, and Dean Walter T. Dunmore, of Cleveland; former President William L. Hart of
Alliance; and Chief Justice Carrington T. Marshall and Judges Robert H. Day and Florence E.
Allen, of the Ohio Supreme Court.
In every generation, people point to some new device or development which, they believe, is
leading to the downfall of society. President Charles B. Hunt of Coshocton gave his own list of
societal evils in his annual address, as he urged support for the work of the special committee on
codification of the criminal laws. He pointed out that the special committee had been assisted by
members of the Ohio General Assembly and Common Pleas Judges Association, but said that the
proposed code would not be the cure-all for the evils of the day. He singled out the automobile,
the World War, and the Prohibition Amendment as factors contributing to crime. His remarks on
permissiveness provide considerable food for thought, and might well be pondered by presentday parents, pastors, and public officials in all branches of government. Hunt said, ―The teaching
that there should be no corporal punishment in the home or school, that children should be
permitted to direct their own ways without restraint or guidance, the destructive criticism of the
Bible whereby faith in it as being the word of God was undermined, the failure of heads of
families to carry out the injunction to teach their children the law of God, all of these were the
seeds which were sown and which have produced the harvest we are reaping.‖
Returning to temporal matters, President Hunt announced that he had appointed a committee
consisting of one representative from each of the state‘s appellate districts with instructions to
cooperate with a committee from the Probate Judges‘ Association. The charge to this group was
to revise and modernize the Ohio probate code. It was a job long overdue, and would occupy the
attention of the probate bench and the bar for several years to come. Howard L. Barkdull of
Cleveland was designated chairman. The secretary was a young lawyer in his office, John w.
Barkley, who later became Mayor of the city of Shaker Heights and attained the highest ranking
in Ohio Masonic circles. Barkdull set to work immediately to solicit suggestions for necessary
improvement in the probate laws.
A lengthy announcement of the goals and objectives of the committee was published in the
Ohio BAR. The same issue announced that associate memberships in the Association of the Bar
of the City of New York were available to Ohio lawyers and noted the advantages of such
affiliation for attorneys in New York on business. Also in that issue was an announcement that
constituted the first step in a budding political career—the Champaign County Bar Association
endorsed John W. Bricker of Columbus for the office of Attorney General.
The report of the treasurer, Marshall G. Fenton of Chillicothe, indicated that the Association
was prospering. Income was over $20,000 and expenditures were some $18,000. There were
3,085 members at the beginning of the meeting.
Golden Anniversary
In Ohio legal circles 1929 was distinguished by things other than the stock market crash of
October 29—it was the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Ohio State Bar Association, and the first
anniversary of the Ohio BAR in the form we know today.
The year 1929 was noteworthy for the Ohio State Bar Association in other respects, too, since
the Association successfully shepherded three bills and two constitutional amendments through
the 88th Ohio General Assembly. The most important of these measures were the complete
codification of the Ohio criminal laws, a new law dealing with the sale of corporate securities,
and corrective amendments to the new corporation code.
In an editorial entitled, ―Don‘t Blame The Lawyers,‖ the Akron Beacon Journal said, ―For
many years the people have held the suspicion that lawyers only are responsible for all the fool
proposals with which the legislative mills are jammed. The last session in Ohio gives the lawyers
good acquittance on that score.‖ This was a perceptive observation on the part of the leading
newspaper of the county which regularly sent to the legislature a layman, Gus Kasch, who with
dogged persistence would introduce about thirty bills each session but rarely saw any of them
passed. The editorial commended the Association members generally, and Charles F. Schnee of
Akron, Chairman of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee in particular, for
their generous contribution of time and talent in securing the adoption of such meritorious
legislation.
The President provided some insights into the activities of the Ohio State Bar Association for
the preceding year. He could report that more than 600 new members were added to the rolls, to
bring the total to over 3,600. There were now thirty-one standing and special committees
working on various phases of substantive law and Association matters. Work was progressing
steadily on the proposed probate code. Relations with the press had shown marked
improvement—even to the extent of the appearance in the newspapers of Ohio of commendatory
editorials and favorable publicity. Finally, a group of twenty-five of the state‘s ablest lawyers
had met and drafted, at the request of the Supreme Court, a workable set of canons of legal ethics
for submission to the Court.
Looking to the future, Elden advocated the appointment of a full-time lawyer assistant for the
Grievance Committee. He urged continuance of negotiations with the banks, trust companies and
title companies to draw an effective line between their legitimate and proper activities and those
which are clearly the practice of law. Recognizing the emergency of the United States as a
business-oriented nation, President Elden called upon the law schools to expand their curricula to
include such subjects as income tax law, accounting, public utility law, and the giving of
business and corporate advice.
Among the committees reporting at Cedar Point was the group under Newton d. Baker,
charged with the study of unification of the bar. Baker‘s committee had conducted an exhaustive
survey of developments in the field. It recommended that the report be printed and circulated to
all local bar associations, and that the entire subject should then be placed on the agenda for the
1930 Annual Meeting.
A portent of things to come was the appointment of a Women‘s Welfare committee, with Mrs.
Sarah P. Hedrick of Cleveland as chairman. The group made a real contribution—through its
efforts, women were included by the probate courts on their lists of appraisers. The committee
also helped secure an appropriation of $35,000 to provide a vocational training school at the
Marysville Reformatory.
A new feature appeared on the program of the convention. The delegates were treated to a
gridiron show put on by the members of the Delta Theta Phi Legal Fraternity and the Cincinnati
Lawyers‘ Club. The theme of the show was what would be happening at the 75th Annual
Meeting in 1954. The farce concluded with a proposal to establish a home for old lawyers, and
unflattering descriptions of the probable inmates.
President Elden could retire with the satisfaction of a job well done. He was the recipient of
congratulatory letters from Chief Justice William H. Taft, Ohio Chief Justice Carrington t.
Marshall and U. S. Senators Simeon D. Fess and Theodore E. Burton. A letter from Gurney E.
Newlin, President of the American Bar Association, was particularly gratifying. It said, ―The
Ohio State Bar Association is, moreover, by reason of its outstanding influence and
extraordinary accomplishments in originating, shaping, developing and improving the
substantive law and the administration thereof … entitled confidently to celebrate the occasion as
a golden anniversary of accomplishments.‖
The column entitled, ―The Fourth Estate Says,‖ became a feature of the expanded Ohio BAR.
Its columns throw much light on conditions prevailing in the legal profession. Noteworthy in
1929 was a statement by Arthur A. Miller of Cleveland, a member of the Association‘s
Committee on Legal Education, who said that the committee was concerned about an oversupply
of lawyers. The Carnegie Foundation had made a survey and found that in 1870 there were four
lawyers, eight ministers and sixteen doctors for each 100,000 of population. By 1900, the ratio
was sixteen lawyers, eleven ministers and thirty-three doctors. In 1927, the figures were twentythree lawyers, twelve ministers and only fifteen doctors. The sharp reduction in the number of
doctors was traceable directly to stiffened educational requirements for admission to the practice
of medicine.
Miller said that his committee was considering a three-point program aimed at reducing the
number of admissions to the bar. First, there should be an examination prior to embarking on the
study of law, for the purpose of ascertaining the applicant‘s motives, character, reputation,
natural ability and education. Second, there should be a similar examination that would be taken
along with the bar examination itself. Third, the completion of a standard four-year college
course should be required as a condition to admission to law school. Another (and more
controversial) idea offered was to admit only those who scored in the top fifty to one hundred on
the bar examination.
The same column in ―The Fourth Estate Says: provided some interesting information on
women lawyers in Ohio. Seba H. Miller, Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court, announced that the
Court‘s records revealed that Miss Agnes Scott was admitted to practice October 31, 1878, and
apparently was the first woman admitted to the bar of Ohio. She was examined by a committee
of three men appointed by the district court and was recommended for admission, but the district
court was scandalized by the idea of a woman practicing law, and refused to admit her. She was
finally admitted pursuant to the mandate of a special act of the legislature. (Martindale‘s
directory included a Mrs. N. C. Lutes of Tiffin, and stated that she was admitted to practice in
1873, but the Supreme Court‘s records did not confirm this.) The second woman lawyer was
Edith Sims of Tiffin, who began practice in 1881. The third was Mary P. Spargo of Cleveland,
who was admitted in 1895.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE DEPRESSION YEARS
“In addition to the problems raised by the concentration of industry and labor,
there are the great social problems of this period, represented by relief,
unemployment, old age, retirement of railroad employees, loans to states and
municipalities for public works, housing resettlement and soil conservation, each
of which must run the gauntlet of constitutional test.
“This generation is called upon to grapple with and settle the question of whether
under our Constitution, the National Government is competent to legislate for the
correction of certain economic and social conditions which many believe cannot
be effectively handled by State action.”
Hon. Stanley Reed,
Solicitor General of
The United States
***
The Great Probate Reforms
President William G. Pickrel opened the Golden Jubilee year of 1930 by summoning the
members of the Ohio State Bar Association to his hometown of Dayton on January 23rd for the
Mid-Winter Meeting. The brand-new Biltmore Hotel was headquarters for the convention. The
room rates were $3 for singles and $5 for doubles. Similar rates were available at the Gibbons,
Miami and Van Cleve Hotels. As a special inducement, the Gibbons offered single rooms
(without bath) for $2.
The Membership Committee Bar did an outstanding job during President Pickrel‘s term.
Among those who joined the Association at the Dayton meeting were: Thomas M. Power of
Akron, who served as a judge of the Akron Municipal Court and as Chairman of the
Association‘s Traffic Law Committee; Richard F. Sater of Columbus, who served as Chairman
of the Probate and Trust Law Committee for many years; Vincent Zurz who became Probate
Judge of Summit County; Harold F. Adams of Columbus, whose son, John, was President of the
Association in 1979; Ferd G. Behrens of Napoleon, who became the Probate and Common Pleas
Judge of Henry County; James C. Connell of Cleveland, who later served on both the common
pleas and federal benches; John C. Durfey of Springfield, a future president of the Association;
Harry G. Gram of Springfield, who gained nationwide renown as the founder of the 4-H Clubs;
Charles H. Jones of Jackson, who was Director of Commerce in the Bricker Administration;
Russell H. Kear of Upper Sandusky, who became the Common Pleas Judge of Wyandotte
County; George D. Nye of Waverly, a future Lieutenant Governor of Ohio; Daniel H.
Wasserman of Cleveland, who was appointed to the Common Pleas Court and the Court of
Appeals in Cuyahoga County; and Otis R. Hess of Cincinnati, who became a Judge of the Court
of Appeals.
A new title was given to an old subject in 1930. Having failed to gain approval of the plan for
integration of the bar during the past twenty years, a special committee was appointed to secure
an ―All-Inclusive Bar Association‖ in Ohio by legislative enactment. A strong committee headed
by past president John A. Elden, with Newton D. Baker as honorary chairman, undertook the
task. Like its predecessors this committee would fail. The independence of Ohio lawyers, and the
strength of the voluntary Association, would combine to defeat any proposal which would
require all lawyers to join a state bar association as a condition precedent to the right to practice
law.
One of the strengths of the state bar has been in its committees. Sixteen of these reported on a
variety of subjects. Chairman Grauman Marks of Cincinnati reported for the Legal Education
Committee, which recommended that the preceptor system—―reading law‖ in an attorney‘s
office to prepare for admission to practice—be abolished. It also advocated that a certificate of
moral character and fitness be filed upon declaration of one‘s intention to embark upon the study
of law.
The Association had evidently concluded that the day of the horse and buggy was over. A new
committee to study and recommend motor vehicle laws had been appointed, with Russell M.
Knepper of Columbus as chairman. The committee recommended a drivers‘ license law for
Ohio, and the proposal was approved by the convention. A second, and more controversial
measure called for a financial responsibility law, but the matter was retained by the committee
for further study.
The most vital and far-reaching report of the session was that of the Committee on Revision
of Probate Law. Chairman Howard L. Barkdull and his committee had worked assiduously, held
meeting and hearing in many parts of the state, and produced drafts of proposed changes which
brought strong editorial support from Ohio‘s newspapers. Noting that the existing probate laws
were over 100 years old and contained many antiquated and unfair provisions, the Bowling
Green Tribune said, ―Woman of Ohio owe it to themselves to insist that the Ohio law relating to
dower shall be changed. The 100 year-old law provides that a widow or widower is entitled to
the life use of but one-third of the estate left by the deceased, if there be children.‖ The
Cleveland News called for revision of the probate laws, because the old laws imposed the
injustices of a century ago upon a modern world. The News asked, ―How often has the public
seen the spectacle of a husband who was left penniless because his wealthy wife divided her
estate among her brothers, sisters, cousins or other relatives? Sometimes the estate represented
money earned by him, but placed in her name.‖
One proposal of the committee which met with substantial opposition gave probate judges the
power to construe wills. Since a number of probate judges were not lawyers, the reason for the
antagonism to the proposed measure was plain. The objection was dropped, however, when it
was pointed out that the draft of the proposal bill authorized the appointment of a master
commissioner if the judge was not a lawyer.
***
The annual convention at Cedar Point produced a novelty in Association history: never before
had three candidates been nominated for the Presidency. Walter G. Kirkbride of Toledo was
proposed as a candidate by S. R. Williams. The name of Phil S. Bradford of Columbus was
placed in nomination by John W. Bricker. The third candidate was John B. Dworken of
Cleveland, who was nominated by Max Dworken. The winner was Phil S. Bradford. A native of
Muskingum County, he attended Denison University and obtained his law degree from The Ohio
State University.
A proposed Ohio Constitutional amendment to reapportion the legislature was the subject of a
debate between State Senator George H. Bender of Cleveland and Dallas Sullivan of rural Union
County. Bender, the author of the resolution, favored increased representation for the
metropolitan areas at the expense of rural Ohio. Sullivan quite naturally opposed the amendment
(the voters agreed with Sullivan in the election). The candidates for governor, the Ohio Supreme
Court, U.S. Senator, and Attorney General were guests of honor at a dinner on Wednesday, July
9.
The influx of young people into the legal profession, 624 in the summer of 1930, attracted the
attention of the newspapers, as well as the lawyers who would be facing additional competition
from the neophytes as the Depression deepened. The Cleveland Plain Dealer said, ―It is almost
impossible for a young man to et himself up in the city any longer. The grocers and other small
businessmen, who could give collections, have been crowded out by the chains and the law work
of the chains is handled by the big firms. Every industrial merger has destroyed a legal account.‖
The admission of so many new members to the bar of Ohio contained other human interest.
The Columbus Dispatch carried the following account concerning an event which took place in
Van Wert County in the early years of the 20th Century, and followed it to a happy conclusion in
March, 1931:
―Something like a quarter of a century ago, Edward s. Matthias, a young Ohio lawyer at the
opening of a judicial career, chose the name of the great chief justice who laid down the original
lines of interpretation of the federal constitution, John Marshall, as the name of a son who was
born to him. …
―During the past week, John Marshall Matthias came up for admission to the Ohio bar, and
came with the top record won by any applicant of the many who appeared at the recent bar
examinations. As his father—15 years now on the supreme bench of Ohio—had the pleasure of
administering the oath to his son, who will doubt that his mind went back to the day when he
took the risk of naming that son John Marshall …‖
The sequel to the story, of course, is that John Marshall Matthias was elected in 1954 to the
seat his father had held on the Supreme Court of Ohio until his death. The namesake of the great
Chief Justice served with honor and distinction on the state‘s highest court until his retirement in
1970. For a short period, he served as acting Chief Justice.
***
President Phil S. Bradford and his fellow members of the bar of the capital city hosted the
1931 Mid-Winter Meeting in the Deshler-Wallick Hotel in Columbus. The first half of President
Bradford‘s administration had been a period of substantial achievement. The membership
Committee submitted the names of 401 applicants for membership, the largest number of new
members in many years. After several years of careful preparation, Chairman Howard Barkdull
of the Committee on Revision of the Probate Code announced that a bill drafted by the
committee had been introduced in both houses of the General Assembly. Judiciary Committee
hearings had been held, and Barkdull said that the members of the legislature were favorably
impressed by the proposals.
The Criminal Law Committee, and the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee,
had spent countless hours studying criminal law reforms for introduction in the General
Assembly. The former group had settled upon thirty different amendments to the criminal code,
and the latter had sixteen proposals, twelve of which required legislative action. Apparently,
however, the admonition of William Pickrel in is presidential address of the preceding year fell
upon deaf ears. Pickrel had since won election as Ohio‘s Lieutenant Governor, and as the
presiding officer of the Senate he was thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of the General
Assembly. He knew what he was talking about when he cautioned the Association against
putting too many bills in the legislative hopper. His warning was disregarded, and the bills
proposed by the Criminal Law and Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committees were
among a total package of ninety-three measures sponsored by the Association. As it turned out,
the Association should have heeded Pickrel‘s warning.
Finances were a concern at the Mid-Winter Meeting. The proposed budget showed estimated
expenditures totaling $25,650, over half of which was allotted to publishing the Ohio BAR.
Salaries consumed $5,400 of the total. Cash on hand on January 1 was $1,936.09. Nevertheless,
the Executive Committee approved the hiring of Paul Vale to assist Secretary Henney, who had
taken over Marshall G. Fenton‘s duties as Association Treasurer when the latter became Probate
Judge of Ross County.
President Bradford stressed the need for continued growth in membership and urged vigilance
against the unauthorized practice of law. Bradford called attention to the bill to establish the
―All-Inclusive Bar,‖ which was pending in the General Assembly. Recognizing that the plan did
not have the unanimous approval of the membership, the President nevertheless reasoned that, if
a 4,000-member association could accomplish good for the state and the profession, the
achievements of an organization embracing all of the lawyers in Ohio would be much greater.
An attractive social program rounded-out the convention activities. The ladies were treated to
a trip to the top of the AIU Tower to enjoy the spectacular view of the capital city. This is the
building which Will Rogers once described as a monument to all of the silos of Ohio. A tea was
held at the home of Mr. And Mrs. Freeman Eagleson in Bexley. A special attraction was the visit
to the newly-opened Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts, where the works of two Columbus artists,
Alice Schille and George Bellows, were on display. One entire room in the gallery was dedicated
to the art of Bellows, who was born in Columbus in 1882 and was graduated from The Ohio
State University.
***
It was back to Cedar Point for the 52nd annual Meeting in July 1931. President Bradford
entitled his address, ―A Brief Survey and a Word of appreciation,‖ and disclosed that during the
past two years several local bar associations had helped defray the expenses incurred by the
hard-working Probate Code Committee. He publicly thanked the Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Columbus, Dayton, Toledo and Richland County Bar Associations for their financial assistance
to so worthwhile an effort.
The subject of a uniform municipal court act drew the president‘s attention. He recalled that
Governor a. V. Donahey had vetoed all special municipal court bills presented to him because he
believed in the necessity for a uniform law. Governor George White, after signing several bills
for specific municipal courts, wrote to the Chairman of the Judicial Council and to President
Bradford, and urged that they take action to unify all legislation in the field. In response to that
request, the Judicial Council prepared a uniform court bill and the Association scheduled a
discussion on the subject, with Chief Justice Carrington T. Marshall and Judge John P. Dempsey
of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court as speakers.
Legislation occupied the lion‘s share of the attention of the Association. Fred W. Warner of
Marion, Chairman of the Legislation Committee, reported that of the ninety-three bills approved
by the Association and introduced in the legislature, only a handful had become law. He
attributed this to the disorganized condition of the legislature and the fact that it was almost
equally divided between the two major parties. His remarks recalled the warning of Lieutenant
Governor Pickrel against overloading the legislative hopper. They also brought to mind the
statement of President Bradford at the Mid-Winter Meeting to the effect that the legislature
would buy nearly all of the bills so deep in some committee that even Gabriel‘s trumpet would
not call them back to life on Judgment Day.
Grievance Committee Chairman J. H. Beatty of Toledo presented a controversial resolution
under which it would be deemed unprofessional conduct to use a firm name unless each person
was a member in good standing of the Ohio bar and a bona fide member of the firm. The name
of a deceased member might be retained in the firm name for a reasonable time, but not
exceeding two years. The resolution was disapproved.
One of few bright spots in the legislative program of the State Bar in 1931 was the passage of
certain corrective amendments to the corporation code. Past President Province M. Pogue of
Cincinnati reported on the work of the Corporation Law Committee and moved that the thanks of
the Association be extended to Senator Frank E. Whittemore of Akron and Representative
Charles A. Jones of Jackson for their assistance in securing passage of the amendments. Both
men made their mark in politics. Jones was Director of Commerce in the administration of
Governor John W. Bricker. Whittemore‘s name became a household word in Ohio by virtue of
his sponsorship of a bill to ease the burden of paying delinquent real estate taxes. At a dinner
given by the Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce in 1943, Senator Whittemore was being
introduced by the toastmaster, who dwelled on Whittemore‘s longevity as a legislator. One of the
guests, Secretary of State Edward J. Hummel, leaned over to is fellow Cincinnatian,
Representative Harry Asmann, and said, ―My, he has been in the legislature for a long time.‖
Asmann responded, ―Yes, he was first elected when the capital was at Chillicothe.‖ After
puzzling over this for several moments Hummel ingenuously replied, ―Oh, that can‘t be right,
can it?‖
Another bright spot in the 1931 legislative program, and a signal victory for the Association,
was the adoption of the new probate code. Chairman Howard L. Barkdull and his committee had
labored long and hard to produce a comprehensive revision of a portion of the law which
probably affects more people than any other set of statutes. The thanks of the Association were
extended to Lieutenant Governor Pickrel, Senator William Dunipace of Bowling Green, and
Representative William Weir of Warren, for their strong support. Weir received tangible
recognition from his peers when he was elected to the Executive Committee.
***
The Mid-Winter Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association came in January, 1932 in
Cincinnati, where the bar was noted for its adherence to Shakespeare‘s admonition, ―And do as
adversaries do in law, —Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.‖ To encourage attendance,
reduced rates for delegates had been arranged on Ohio‘s railroads. The ballroom of the
Netherlands Plaza was decorated with portraits including: five members of the bar of Ohio who
had attained the highest office in the United States—General William Henry Harrison,
Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and William Howard Taft; plus the
portraits of the eight Ohio lawyers who had served on the United States Supreme Court—John
McLean, Salmon P. Chase, Noah Swayne, Morrison R. Waite, Stanley Matthews, William R.
Day, John H. Clarke and William Howard Taft.
Joseph L. Stern of Cleveland, the perennial defender of the profession against unauthorized
practitioners, announced that injunctions had been obtained against individuals and corporations
engaged illegally in one or more phases of the practice of law in Cuyahoga County. The total
membership of the groups enjoined was over 80,000 and their gross income was in excess of
$2,000,000.
A full-page article hailed the forthcoming fifth anniversary of continuous publication of the
Ohio BAR. The article reported a commendation to the Ohio State Bar Association by Gurney E.
Newlin of Los Angeles, President of the American Bar Association. Newlin said that he came to
Ohio when he wanted to learn how to run a state bar association. He also stated that the Ohio
State Bar Association was giving more time and effort then any other similar group to the
problems of the profession.
Declaratory Judgments and Bar Examinations
Hard times gripped the country in the summer of 1932, but neither the Depression nor
torrential rains prevented the Ohio lawyers from turning out at Cedar Point in numbers.
President Walter A. Ryan of Cincinnati was confined by illness to his room in the Breakers
Hotel. He was able to attend the Friday evening banquet, however, and spoke briefly to the
assembled barristers. His remarks were limited to an expression of his appreciation for the
kindness and cooperation extended to him by his fellow lawyers during his term in office, and
this marked the first time in history of the Association that the constitutionally-required address
was not delivered by the President or by someone in his behalf. In the absence of Ryan, past
Presidents Simeon M. Johnson, John A. Elden and George B. Harris presided over the
deliberations.
William Weldon of Mansfield reported that the Executive Committee had met eight times
during the preceding year and that its most important action was the creation of a Committee on
the Unauthorized Practice of Law, to help stem the invasion of the field of the law by laymen. A
request that the printing of the Annual Reports be resumed was denied when the Executive
Committee inquired and found that only 135 members would be willing to pay for them, and the
amount they were willing to pay was only 25% of the cost.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee, a work horse of the Association,
reported the drafting of a bill to simplify appellate procedure in Ohio. Chief among the bill‘s
provisions were the elimination of the old distinction between appeal and error, and the
establishment of the ―one trial, one review‖ principle by eliminating technical and immaterial
violations of procedural rules as a ground for appeal. The committee also approved in principle a
constitutional amendment to provide for optional forms of county government. Another matter
which had concerned the group for many years was the selection and tenure of judges, and the
committee declared in favor of twelve-year terms for the Supreme Court and court of appeals
judges, eight years for common pleas court judges, and the appointment of all judges above the
common pleas court by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A sub-committee of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee expressed
approval in principle of a bill pending in the U.S. Senate providing for declaratory judgments.
The sub-committee called for the preparation of a similar bill in Ohio. In fact, limited declaratory
judgment actions were possible in Ohio under the new probate code—Howard Barddull, in his
series of explanatory articles on the code, pointed out that such actions were allowed but were
strictly limited to matters in the jurisdiction of the probate courts. Recognizing the merit of the
declaratory judgment idea, he traced its history to Roman times. It had been in use on the
European continent prior to the American Revolution. England passed a Declaratory Judgments
Act in 1852. The Commissioners on Uniform State Laws proposed such an act in 1922, and in
the following year five states adopted it. By 1931, a total of fifteen states had such laws, although
some of them limited the action to rights arising out of the administration of estates.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners was organized in 1932. A similar group had been
formed in 1898 when only twelve states had Boards of Bar Examiners. It lasted for only two
years, although it was revived briefly in 1904. The new Conference stated its objectives in a
report in the Ohio BAR. Two of these objectives were almost identical with goals that had long
been advocated by the Ohio State Bar Association Committee on Legal Education: to improve
standards of general education and legal training; and to require a thorough investigation of the
character of each applicant. The new organization filled a real need and has rendered great
service to the profession. In later years, John Eckler of Columbus led the national group to some
of its greatest accomplishments.
In Ohio, the June bar examination was administered to 67 applicants, of whom 257 passed and
360 failed (the average of successful candidates over the preceding six examinations had been
58.3%). When the Chief Justice addressed the new lawyers at Cincinnati, he referred to the high
mortality rate on the recent examination and attributed it to the fact that the test had been made
more difficult—not, he said, to eliminate competition, but for the sole purpose of maintaining
high standards for admission to the bar. Among the fortunate 257 in 1932 were three men who
served on the Executive Committee of the State Bar in later years: Robert L. Quinn of
Steubenville; Raymond C. Rise of New Philadelphia; and Karl H. Weaner of Defiance. Three
future state legislators, Kenneth Thornton of Cleveland, George B. Marshall of Columbus, and
Clifton L. Caryl of Marysville, were also among the successful candidates. Marshall, Rice and
Weaner later became common pleas judges.
Constitution Day in September brought forth streams of oratory. Francis B. Kavanagh of
Cleveland, a member of the Association‘s Jury Law Reform Committee, delivered a speech
entitled ―Tyranny Under the Constitution.‖ Referring to the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution
Kavanagh said, ―Nowhere is there to be found in all history, expressed in any language, such
noble sentiments of any peoples since the beginning of civilization.‖ Warning that America‘s
greatness depended upon the greatness of its people, he quoted the mid-nineteenth century
prophecy of Lord Macauley who said, ―Your American Republic will be as fearfully plundered
and laid waste in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth century, but your
Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own institutions.
A significant accomplishment of the late summer of 1931 had been the installation of a
completely new accounting system for the Association, including a membership record which
identified each lawyer by name, address, appellate district, date of admission to the bar, and date
of affiliation with the association. The Ohio BAR boasted, ―From the foregoing books it is
possible to ascertain everything excepting prognostications on the weather or the temperament of
individual members of the Association.‖
Lie Detectors and Zeppelins
Akron, the rubber city and hometown of the Association‘s president, Robert Guinther, was the
scene of the 1933 Mid-Winter Meeting on January 26, 1933 in the Mayflower Hotel. President
Guinther assembled a distinguished array of speakers, including Wendell Willkie, President of
Commonwealth and Southern Corporation of New York, who spoke on, ―Public Utilities and
Holding Companies‖, a subject he was well qualified to discuss. He had been a member of the
Akron firm of Mather, Newbitt and Willkie, whose practice was concentrated in the public utility
field. In a gem of understatement the Ohio BAR said, ―The ability of Mr. Willkie as a public
speaker has been many times recognized, and he has been called upon before many bodies and
groups.‖ Seven years later he would address many more bodies and groups as the Republican
presidential nominee.
Two newly-elected Ohio officials were on the program. John W. Bricker of Columbus,
Chairman of the Conference of Bar Delegates, was the new Attorney General, and Carl V.
Weygandt of Cleveland had stepped-up from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals to the chair
of Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Two new subjects were presented at the Mid-Winter Meeting. Roderic Olzendam of The
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York discussed the then radical idea of old age
and unemployment insurance. A new development in police science, the lie detector, was the
subject of a discussion by Leonard Keeler of the Crime Detection Laboratory of Northwestern
University. A feature of Keeler‘s presentation was a demonstration of the new device on one of
the lawyers present. The questions, answers and results were not announced, perhaps out of
charity.
Two of the technological marvels of the time provided a sidelight to the Mid-Winter Meeting.
The Ohio BAR announced, ―… tours will be conducted to the Goodyear-Zeppelin Air Dock,
where the U.S.S. Macon is practically completed. The ‗Macon‘ is being built for the United
States Navy and is the world‘s greatest lighter than air warship. The Goodyear Zeppelin Corp.,
which owns the Dock and has a contract to build the ‗Macon,‘ provides every convenience for
visitors, including guides to point out salient features of construction of the ship and an
explanation of the Dock, which is the largest building without interior support in the world.‖
The Macon was indeed a marvel—like her sister ship Akron, she was so huge that she actually
carried, in internal hangars, a flight of single-seat pursuit plans which were launched and
retrieved while she was airborne. She was the last of three rigid airships built for the U.S. Navy,
and like her predecessors was a doomed ship. The first, the Shenandoah, ran into a severe
thunderstorm and crashed in a field near Cambridge, Ohio in September 1925, losing fourteen
lives (twenty-seven of her crew saved themselves by riding sections of the ship to the ground as
free as balloons). The Akron crashed in a storm at sea in April 1932, with the loss of seventythree officers and men. The Macon went into service a little over two months later and flew until
February 1935 when she collapsed due to structural failure and was lost off Point Sue,
California. Although the Macon disaster resulted in only two fatalities, it ended interest in the
United States in the development of rigid lighter-than-air ships.
Professional Standards—Some Light at the Tunnel‟s End
April 3, 1933 marked the fifth anniversary of the Ohio BAR. It was time to take stock, give
thanks, and express hope, and to puff a little bit. The editor, J. L. W. Henney, expressed
appreciation for the support given the publication by the membership. He noted that since 1880
the Association had with stood periodic storm and stress, and he was confident it would emerge
triumphantly from the Depression. He quoted from the acceptance letter of a non-resident of
Ohio who had been invited to address a meeting of the Association, in which the speaker stated,
―For a number of years, I have repeatedly heard of the constructive activities of your Association
and have heard its work cited as an example to state and city bar associations throughout the
country.‖
April 1933 was an important month for another reason. On April 26 Jerome C. Fisher of
Cleveland, Murray Seasongood of Cincinnati and Secretary John L. W. Henney, representing the
Association, along with members of the Board of Bar Examiners, representatives of many local
bar associations, and Dean H. W. Arant of the College of Law of The Ohio State University, met
with the Supreme Court. Their purpose was to urge it to adopt various recommendations of the
Association relative to admission to the bar, changes in the bar examination content and grading,
emphasis on the Canons of Professional Ethics, and investigation of the moral background of
applicants. Among the proposals was one that would limit to three the number of examinations
that an applicant could take. The Dayton Herald applauded the committee‘s efforts in these
words, ―Most important of the committee‘s recommendations is that which emphasizes the
canons of professional ethics … With this as a test, the right to practice would not be determined
by individual knowledge of abstract and concrete principles of law which have nothing to do
with the moral and ethical conduct of officers of the courts.‖
Almost one year after the meeting at which the rules changes were discussed, the Supreme
Court announced the adoption of at least some of the proposals. New subjects to be included in
the examination were municipal corporations, trusts and conflict of laws. The registration
requirements were amended to provide for the creation of local committees to interview
candidates to determine their character, reputation and moral fitness, and to require candidates to
complete questionnaires prescribed by the Supreme Court. It was half a loaf, but it was a step in
the right direction.
Bar Unification and Other Recurrent Conundrums
The 54th Annual Meeting was held according to custom at the Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point.
It opened at 10 A.M. on Friday, July 7, 1933 with the address of President Robert Guinther of
Akron. He again raised the issue of integration of the bar, viewing it from a new angle—
integration by judicial decree. In a review of court decisions involving admission to practice and
disbarment, Guinther demonstrated that the courts had the power to control the area in between
those two extremes. He posed the question, ―If, then, the judicial power extends over a field
which includes the admission, discipline or removal of attorneys, the regulation of their methods
of practice, and the prohibition of the practice of law by others than attorneys, how can such
judicial power be most effectively exercised?‖ he answered his own question by stating that
integration or unification should be established by court order, rather than by statute (it should be
recalled that previous attempts to have the legislature pass an integration act had failed dismally).
Among the advantages of a unified bar, Guinther asserted, were: the ability of the bar to see that
every lawyer maintained a high degree of professional competence; the power of the bar to
designate the official publications to be used by lawyers and thus eliminate duplications in the
law libraries; and the accumulation, through registration fees and dues, a fund adequate to police
the profession properly.
As an indication that work took precedence over play in the Depression year of 1933, the
Friday night banquet was followed by a meeting of the Council of Bar Association Delegates.
The subject discussed was a recommendation of the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform
Committee with respect to the selection and tenure of judges. The nub of the proposal was that
the judges should be appointed by and with the consent and approval of a judicial nominating
commission. Although the matter was referred back to the committee for more study, the ―Ohio
Plan‖ (which became known nationally as the ―Missouri Plan‖) was beginning to take shape.
Marshall G. Fenton having been appointed judge of the Probate Court of Ross County, the
Treasurer‘s duties devolved upon J. L. W. Henney. He reported total income of $23,634.29 and
total expenditures of $24,660.62. The cash balance was $6,129.26, down $1,000 from 1932. If
the Depression was affecting the finances, it was not particularly manifest in membership, which
jumped from 3,742 in 1932 to 3,994 at the close of the 54th Annual Meeting in 1933. The
meeting bore at least one mark of the Depression, however. For the first time in the Association‘s
history, the convention was telescoped into one and one-half days. The attendance increased over
that of the previous year.
Among the new members of the Association in 1933 were: H. W. Arant of Columbus, Dean
of the College f Law of The Ohio State University; Wilbur L. Shull of Columbus, who became a
state Senator and municipal court Judge; Robert L. Quinn of Steubenville, who would serve in
the Ohio legislature and as a member of the Executive Committee of the State Bar; Rodney M.
Love, a future State Bare Executive Committeeman and Montgomery County Probate Judge;
Earl F. Morris of Columbus, who became one of the great leaders of the legal profession in
America; William D. Radcliff of Williamsport, who served in the legislature, on the court of
appeals, as a member of the Executive Committee of the State Bar, and as the Administrative
Assistant to the Supreme Court; and Evan J. Reed of Akron who became a common pleas judge.
***
The Ohio State Bar Association convened in Columbus for its Mid-Winter Meeting in 1934.
Fred W. Postle, President of the Columbus Bar Association, and Fred R. Place, President of the
Lawyers Club, welcomed the visiting attorneys to the meeting in the ballroom of the DeshlerWallick Hotel. Place‘s group was made up of the young members of the bar, and had played an
important part in planning and organizing the Mid-Winter Meeting.
President A. R. Johnson pointed out the wide variety of services offered by the Association
office, which now included the establishment of a small law library in the Deshler-Wallick—a
real convenience for visiting lawyers arriving in the capital city after offices had closed. Johnson
voiced the growing dissatisfaction of lawyers with the Ohio Industrial Commission, and urged
the transfer of compensation cases from the commission to the common pleas court of the county
where the injury took place. He also echoed the cry heard from bar associations across the state
concerning the unauthorized practice of law, and appearances of laymen to argue cases before
state boards and commissions. He said in candor that the bar was not without its miscreants, and
he urged vigilance to purge the profession of its unethical practitioners.
President Johnson kept the Association moving along many lines, operating through various
standing and special committees. An interesting appointment by Johnson was that of Thomas J.
Herbert of Cleveland to the Aviation Committee. It was a fitting choice, for Herbert was one of
America‘s first aviation heroes of World War I. He later served as Attorney General, Governor,
and Judge of the Supreme Court.
When A. R. Johnson took over the presidency of the Ohio State Br Association, the Great
Depression had engulfed the nation. Financial difficulties beset men and women in every walk of
life, and money was short. Lawyers were as pinched as everyone else, and the Association felt
compelled to take steps to maintain its membership ranks intact by reducing from $8 to $4 the
dues for young lawyers during the first four years after admission to the bar. Advertisements
appeared in the Ohio BAR extolling the advantages of affiliation with the Association.
The Ohio BAR contained other typical advertisements of the times. Bates‘ Ohio Digest was
available at $37.50. Deibel‘s Ohio Probate Law Practice & Forms, including all changes in the
new Probate Code, cost $20. The Dawson-Andrews Forms sold for $12.50. With the legislature
in session virtually every week dealing with the myriad problems brought on by bank closings
and relief crises, new laws were piling up in record numbers, and Baldwin‘s Ohio Code Service,
containing all of these legislative enactments, was available at less than three cent a day.
Lytle Zuber of Columbus, later a state legislator, was chairman of the membership
Committee. The members of the group held a business meeting and were treated to a
complimentary luncheon during the Mid-Winter Meeting. Having gathered 217 new members,
they deserved recognition.
Grauman Marks of Cincinnati, reporting for the Legal Education Committee, renewed the
demand for abolition of law office study as a means of preparation for admission to the bar
examination. He also noted with pride that Ohio had no correspondence law schools.
Harold F. Adams of Columbus, reporting for the Committee on the Industrial Commission,
explained the difficulty that beset his group in seeking remedial legislation relative to practice
before the Commission. He had discovered an unwritten rule which persisted for many years in
the General Assembly—only those bills affecting the Industrial Commission which were
initiated jointly by management and labor lobbyists would be passed.
Social features of the Mid-Winter Meeting included a group luncheon for the alumni of the
University of Cincinnati and Harvard University Law Schools, the members of Phi Alpha Delta
and Delta Theta Phi Law Fraternities, and the referees in bankruptcy. The alumni of the College
of Law of The Ohio State University held their own luncheon. The ladies were entertained with a
theater party and a luncheon in the Fort Hayes Hotel, which was addressed by Judge Florence E.
Allen.
The Passing of an Old Friend
That summer the 55th Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association convened at the
Breakers Hotel at Cedar Point. Built in 1905, the hotel contained 1,000 rooms and ample meeting
facilities, but by 1934 was showing its age and had become somewhat seedy. Cedar Point itself
had begun as a summer resort more than fifty years before, when the steamer Rutherford B.
Hayes ferried visitors from Sandusky out to the sandy beach on the point for picnicking and
swimming. The promotional literature described it as the most elaborate, pretentious, and best
known summer amusement center in the Middle West.
A memorable event of the 55th Annual Meeting was the appearance of Judge Edmund B.
King of Sandusky, a former President of the Association and the only surviving charter member.
King was presented to the members and responded with a few brief recollections of the early
days of the Association and of his own practice. Later that year an era ended for the Ohio State
Bar Association when Judge King died at his home in Sandusky at the age of eighty-four. His
life was cast in the mold of the classical nineteenth century lawyer. Born on a farm in Medina
County July 4, 1850, he attended the local schools, and obtained his higher education at Oberlin
Academy and Baldwin-Wallace University. Judge King then began the study of law on his own,
and later read law in offices in Medina and Norwalk. Upon admission to the bar, he became the
prosecuting Attorney of Medina County. In 1875, he moved to Sandusky and continued his
political activities by serving as a presidential elector for Benjamin Harrison in 1888. He was a
delegate to the state constitutional convention, and a judge of the old Circuit Court. He was
President of the State Bar in 1916.
The Junior Bar
1934 was also memorable as the natal year of the Junior Bar movement in Ohio. Random
efforts had been made over the years to establish better rapport with young lawyers, which
usually involved no more than appearances by bar officials at the induction ceremonies
following announcement of the results of the bar examination. Occasionally, congratulatory
letters were sent to the new lawyers by the Association. This was not enough, and the plain fact
was that the neophyte barristers found little in common with the established lawyers and judges
who controlled the organization.
In light of this, a group of young Franklin County lawyers decided to assert themselves.
Encouraged by Secretary J. L. W. Henney, who recognized that the younger generation was an
untapped source of strength for the Ohio State Bar Association, the Columbus group approached
the Executive Committee for recognition. The response was favorable, and on January 14, 1934,
a resolution was adopted by the Executive Committee authorizing the formation of a Barristers‘
Committee and directing President Johnson to appoint what was called an executive subcommittee. Those chosen were: J. Paul McNamara of Columbus, chairman; Fredericks D.
Berger, Cincinnati; Henry L. Dowler, Marion; David Morgan, Ironton; John L. Van Dervoort,
Zanesville; John M. McElroy, Toledo; Francis Lang, E. Liverpool and Robert s. Pfleuger, Akron.
The committee quickly produced results—ninety young lawyers gathered at the Columbus
Mid-Winter Meeting and agreed to form a permanent organization for young lawyers.
Membership was to be limited to members of the Ohio State Bar Association who had been
admitted to the bar eight years or less. The participants were directed to organize local groups
across the state, and enthusiasm was high. One hundred-fifty junior barristers gathered at Cedar
Point during the Annual Meeting of the Association, for a special program including a dinner
meeting which was addressed by Judge George B. Harris of Cleveland, a past President of the
Association. A code of regulations drafted by the Toledo Junior Bar was adopted. Under it the
organization was designated as the Junior Bar of the Ohio State Bar Association. J. Paul
McNamara was elected president. The Executive Committee was composed of one member from
each of the state‘s nine appellate districts, including: Fredricks D. Berger, Cincinnati; William a.
Miller, Xenia; Harry L. Dowler, Marion; David E. Morgan, Ironton; E. Clark Morrow, Newark;
Joseph D. Stecher, Toledo; Fanyerose Gancfried, Youngstown; Joseph M. Poe, Cleveland; and
B. H. Larabee, Akron.
When the American Bar Association convened in Milwaukee in the summer of 1934, the Ohio
Junior Bar attained national prominence. Nearly 300 young lawyers from all parts of America
were in attendance to take part in the first session of the Junior Bar Conference of the American
Bar Association. Joseph D. Stecher addressed the group and was elected to its governing council.
In his presentation, Stecher described the form of organization of the Ohio group and, as a result,
the new by-laws of the national group were patterned after the Ohio Junior Bar‘s Code of
Regulation.
The purpose clause of the Junior Bar regulations provides that the group is designed to foster
discussion and the interchange of ideas relative to the duties, responsibilities, and problems of
the younger members of the legal profession, aiding their advancement, and encouraging their
interest and participation in the activities of the Ohio State Bar Association. Over the intervening
years, the Junior Bar has originated and carried out many useful programs, and has been a
training ground for many men who attained the presidency or other positions of leadership in the
Association.
The Goal of an Appointive Judiciary
At the 1935 mid-winter meeting in Cleveland the make-up of the Reception committee read
like a ―Who‘s Who‖ of the bar of Cuyahoga County. The chairman was Harold Burton, who
served successively as Mayor of Cleveland, U.S. Senator, and Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two former presidential cabinet members were James R. Garfield and Newton D. Baker. Robert
J. Bulkley and Atlee Pomerene both served in the U.S. Senate. Paul Howland was a member of
Congress. Two Ohio Supreme Court judges, Chief Justice Carl V. Weygandt and Judge Arthur
H. Day, and federal judges Florence E. Allen, Paul Jones and Samuel H. West, were all on the
committee.
Cleveland was the home of Western Reserve University, and it was logical that the planners
of the mid-winter meeting should look to the law school of that institution for help in organizing
the educational portion of the convention. Two members of the faculty, Dean Walter T.
Dunmore and Professor W. W. Dawson, joined with Professor Warren A. Seavsy of Harvard
Law School in presenting a seminar on agency, evidence and the new declaratory judgment act.
True to their calling, the educators published in the Ohio BAR an extensive class assignment list
of leading cases as required reading for convention visitors who planned to attend the seminar.
An old complaint resurfaced at the Cleveland meeting—the problem of a superfluity of
reported cases. A new publication, Ohio Opinions, had come on the market and the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee in its report said that this development gave the
lawyer one more place to look before he could hazard a guess as to the law. The Committee
urged the courts of appeals and Supreme Court to strictly observe the law concerning the
publication of opinions.
Frank T. Bow of Canton, who later served in the Congress, was chairman of the Committee
on Banks and Banking. The rash of bank closings and revelations of questionable banking
practices which marked the early days of the Depression brought a demand for statutory reform,
and Bow‘s committee came up with several recommendations. Among these were strict
limitation on loans to officers and directors, a prohibition against commingling trust funds, and
expansion of the powers of the Superintendent of Banks.
The speaker at the Friday luncheon was one of the great members of the Cincinnati Bar,
Luther Day. He referred to Bruno Hauptman‘s trial in New Jersey for the kidnapping and murder
of Charles Lindbergh‘s baby, and decried the Roman holiday atmosphere which prevailed
because of press abuse. The photographers were particularly offensive and Day said that they
should be excluded, and that admission of the public generally should be governed by rules
which would insure decorum.
The Junior Bar was assuming an important place in bar activities. The young lawyers held a
dinner meeting, with William G. Pickrel as speaker. He stressed the obligation of the bar to take
an active interest in the public welfare, maintain high standards, and guard the profession against
encroachment by unauthorized practitioners. The Junior Bar voted to support the proposal to
abolish justice of the peace courts. It also established a committee to investigate the unauthorized
practice of law.
The League of Ohio Law Schools had been organized in 1934, and it wasted no time in
moving forward. A distinguished group of Ohio law school deans, augmented by bar leaders
such as Newton d. Baker of Cleveland, Grauman Marks of Cincinnati and Paul C. Martin of
Springfield, called upon the Supreme Court and requested a revision of the educational
requirements for admission to the bar. Included in the request was the abolition of law office
study by aspirants to the legal profession. It is difficult to believe in this day of almost universal
education that a few of the elder members of the bar in Ohio who are still active prepared for
their legal careers in the same manner as Abraham Lincoln.
An Ohio BAR issue in 1935 contained a minimum fee schedule established by the Barristers‘
Club of Columbus. The hourly rate for office work was $10. A court trial merited $20 a day if
tried to the court, and $25 per day for a jury trial. Preparation of a deed or mortgage cost $2.50. It
is small wonder that in the previous year it was thought necessary for the Ohio BAR to regularly
carry a notice urging delinquent members to pay their dues. At those rates it would have been
hard just to ―make tongue and buckle meet,‖ let alone pay dues of $8.
The most important activity of the Ohio State Bar Association in the interval between the midwinter meeting and the Annual Meeting was the study of the Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee‘s recommendation in favor of the so called ―Wilkin Plan‖ for the selection of
judges, plus the Committee‘s suggestion that a referendum be held to determine which of several
plans should be endorsed by the Ohio State Bar Association.
Besides the Wilkin plan, the plans under consideration included the ―Cincinnati conference‖
plan (so named because it was proposed at a meeting sponsored by the Cincinnati Bar
Association) under which the Governor would make judicial appointments from a list submitted
to him by a nominating commission. Another, the ―federal‖ plan (which met with little favor),
called for appointment by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Wilkin
Plan was a compromise between the other plans, and provided for the appointment to be made by
the Governor with the advice and consent of a commission of ten members chosen by the Senate.
Also considered was a more complicated arrangement which had been adopted by California in
1934, under which the Governor would appoint appellate and supreme court judges, subject to
confirmation by a commission composed of the Chief Justice, the Presiding Judge of the court of
appeals and the Attorney General. The appointee would run against his record at the end of his
first four years in office and thereafter every six years. The Cleveland Bar Association proposed
a system whereby the Governor would appoint judges subject to the advice and consent of the
Senate, but the appointments would be made from a list submitted by a judicial council
composed of one judge from each level of courts of the sate and three lawyers not holding
judicial office. The appointee would serve during good behavior and run against his record every
six years.
To publicize the subject, and to ascertain the sentiment of the press and of the members of the
bar, a questionnaire was prepared and mailed to news representatives and to members of the
Association. Returns from the newspapers showed a two to one majority in favor of the
appointive system generally, and the Cincinnati plan drew most of their votes. The final returns
from all sources contained some interesting figures. Of the five plans, the Cleveland proposal
prevailed with 440 votes. On the question of appointment versus election of judges, the former
prevailed 1,355 to 268 for the Supreme Court and 1,286 to 299 for the court of appeals. Although
the overall majority on the appointive system for the Supreme Court was five to one, it was only
slightly over three to one in the rural sections of the state. On the question of whether a judge‘s
term should be six years, twelve years, or during good behavior, a plurality favored tenure during
good behavior although the more conservative rural voters favored a six-year term. The Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee‘s choice of the Wilkin plan was soundly rejected
by participants in the poll—it received only 182 favorable votes, which was the least among all
five proposals. The legislature was in session in the spring of 1935, and it passed the
Association‘s appellate procedure bill. In addition to support from the Ohio State Bar
Association, strong support from the measure had come from the Judicial Council, and from the
Institute of Law of Johns Hopkins University, which had been conducting a study of the court
system and the administration of justice in Ohio.
The Demise of the Preceptor System
For the first time since the memorable joint meeting with the American Bar Association at
Cincinnati and Dayton in the summer of 1921, the lawyers of Ohio forsook their favorite summer
oasis and, instead of Cedar Point, the 56th annual Meeting was convened in Columbus.
President George W. Spooner convened the meeting in the ballroom of the Deshler-Wallick
Hotel, and delivered an address which contained some truths which are frequently overlooked
but worth noting. ―A lawyer,‖ said Spooner, ―is charged with the duty of promoting the welfare
of his fellow citizens of all callings. Without compensation, he gives the public the benefit of his
education and experiences in addresses on many subjects; he serves on civic, social and fraternal
organizations; he promotes good legislation and opposes bad legislation, solely in the public
interests; he defends the poor without expectation of reward, and is ever advancing the welfare of
the nation. They have been the apostles of liberty, the prophets of independence, the architects of
government, the pilots in the storm, the makers of peace and the builders and conservators of
public opinion, so essential to the maintenance of a sound and just government.‖
The committees of the State Bar had had a busy year. The young lawyers moved to solidify
their position by offering a constitutional amendment to establish the Junior Bar Section for
members who had been in practice for not more than ten years, and setting forth its powers (it
was adopted).
The Legal Education Committee achieved a long sought goal. It jubilantly reported that, as of
September 1, 1935, under Supreme Court rule no one would be permitted to enter the profession
after ―reading law‖ in a law office. Henceforth, an applicant must be a graduate of a law school
approved by the American Bar Association, or of one that was a member of the League of Ohio
Law Schools, or of a school outside of Ohio approved by the League.
The Integration Issue Heats Up
Past President Robert Guinther stirred up a hornet‘s nest at the Annual Meeting in 1935, when
he presented the report of the Committee on Integration of the Bar. In what was described in the
Ohio BAR as ―extended and at times acrimonious debate,‖ Guinther‘s report was sent back to the
Committee. The Cuyahoga County Bar Association was strongly opposed to the proposition, and
Joseph L. Stern of Cleveland, a former President of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association, led
the fight against the report. Stern‘s motion to recommit the report also called for the enlargement
of the committee to six members from each appellate district, and requested that group to study
alternative plans of reorganization.
The Legislation Committee supported fourteen bills in the Legislature that had been endorsed
by the Association. One of these, a bill to abolish the office of justice of the peace, was defeated.
Seven bills did not come up for a vote. One bill that did pass required all future probate court
judges to be lawyers—a goal which the Association had sought for over fifty years. Another
measure of great importance which passed was the appellate procedure act, which provided a
relatively simple and understandable method of taking an appeal from the decision of a trial
court.
The legislature had much other work to do. All bills enacted into law were listed in the Ohio
BAR as a regular feature of the magazine, and among those reported in 1935 were measures: to
prohibit discrimination in employment on public works or contracts for public buildings because
of race, creed or color; to establish the Department of Liquor Control and create the state
monopoly on liquor; and to provide free textbooks for public school students. The General
Assembly also dealt with a seemingly vexatious problem of the day by passing a bill prohibiting
marathons, marathon dances, walkathons, talkathons and skatathons.
A Greater Voice for Local Associations
An important project in the administration of President Charles W. Racine in 1936 was the
celebration of Constitution Week. This was a fitting activity, since political attacks were being
mounted against the restraints of the Constitution in dealing with the Depression, and lawyers
were rallying to the defense of the nation‘s charter. Typical of the response of the bar was a
speech by Professor Thomas C. Lavery of the Cincinnati University College of Law, who said,
―… the recuperative effort of the federal government must be made in a manner consistent with
the authority granted by the Constitution.‖
President Racine wrote to the presidents of the local bar associations of the state urging them
to arrange meetings with clubs, churches, schools and patriotic groups at which lawyers would
deliver addresses on the Constitution. Members of the State Bar who had prepared speeches on
the Constitution were urged to contact the presidents of local bar associations to offer their
services as speakers. A prompt response came from Cleveland. Mayor Harry L. David issued a
proclamation designating the week of September 15 as ―Constitution Week,‖ and calling upon all
citizens to display the flag and cooperate in promoting patriotic activities.
August saw the founding of a new bar organization which remains strong and useful to the
present day. In that month the lawyers of Defiance, Fulton, Henry and Williams Counties met
and organized the Northwestern Ohio Bar Association. Its first officers were: J. H. Ham of
Wauseon, President; Russell Maxwell of Bryan, Vice President and Ferd G. Behrens of
Napoleon, Secretary-Treasurer.
The momentum of the drive for an appointive judiciary was increasing. The Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee had been charged with the duty of preparing an
amendment of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, and a subcommittee composed of George R.
Murray of Dayton, Henry G. Binns of Columbus and Leslie Reid of Lima prepared a draft which
embodied the so called ―Cleveland Plan‖ which had been preferred in the poll of the bar and
newspapers earlier in the year. At the Mid-Winter Meeting, Murray asked that the proposed
amendment be referred back to the Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee for the
purpose of conducting a referendum and for presentation at the Annual Meeting. He called for
discussion of the measure at regional and local bar meetings.
Through the years the complaint has periodically been heard that the Ohio State Bar
Association is out of touch with the local bar associations. This, and other critical comments,
were voiced at a meeting of the Cincinnati Bar Association Executive Committee and other
leaders of that association late in 1935. The discussion was precipitated by Gerritt J. Fredriks, the
State Bar Executive Committeeman for the First Appellate District, who had attended a meeting
of local bar leaders in Columbus. It was charged that the state convictions were ―packed‖ by
small groups seeking to gain approval of their pet measures. It was also felt that the Conference
of Bar Association Delegates was not serving its intended purpose of giving local bar groups a
stronger voice in state Association affairs. The Cincinnati group presented a number of
constructive suggestions. One came from Grauman Marks, who proposed that there be closer ties
between state and local bar association committees. Marks objected to the custom of electing
district vice presidents and committee members at the annual convention by small groups from
those districts.
As if in response to the issues raised by the Cincinnati lawyers, the Ohio BAR for November
25 contained an announcement of the December meeting of the Executive Committee of the
State Bar, together with an invitation to submit matters of interest to the President or the
Secretary. A special committee appointed by President Racine to review the Association‘s
Constitution caused its final draft of proposed changes to be published in the Ohio BAR
preparatory to presentation of the draft to the mid-winter meeting. The proposed amendments in
the Constitution reflected the criticisms made at the Cincinnati meeting.
When the Mid-Winter Meeting opened at the Commodore Perry Hotel in Toledo on January
17, the constitutional amendments were vigorously debated. It was contended by some that the
changes would concentrate too much power in the Executive Committee. One stickler for form
argued that the amendments had not been published in accordance with the terms of the existing
Constitution. He had a point—the amendments were published in the Ohio BAR December 23,
1935 and were acted upon January 18, 1936, whereas the constitution required four weeks‘
advance notice in the journal of the Association. That technicality was dismissed, however, and
the amendments were adopted.
The amendments made a number of important changes. One of these was the creation of a
Council of Delegates, composed of at least two delegates from each local bar association or
lawyers club, and in case no such group existed in a county, the two delegates would be chosen
by the lawyers of that county. Another change required all district vice presidents and executive
committee members to be elected by mail ballot after being nominated by petitions signed by
twenty-five lawyers in the candidate‘s district. Under the new plan, the districts would be the
appellate districts of the state. The requirement that the President deliver an address at the
meeting next following his election was deleted (the address was made discretionary). Another
new requirement was that the names of all applicants for membership be published in the journal
of the Association for thirty days. With the adoption of the new amendments the Constitution
continued virtually unchanged for the next ten years.
The organizers of the mid-winter meeting apparently thought that it was time for the
opposition to speak out against the New Deal. The list of speakers invited included the Ohioborn U.S. Senator from Missouri, James A. Reed, described as the stormy petrel of American
politics and an outspoken opponent of recent New Deal legislation. Another was former
Governor Albert C. Ritchie of Maryland, whose topic, ―The American Constitution—Let Us
Preserve It,‖ suggests that he had reservations about then current Washington activities. Fred C.
Rector of Columbus spoke on the subject, ―Change Is Not Always Reform.‖ William B. Stewart
of Cleveland decried the effort to destroy the checks and balances of the federal system in a talk
entitled, ―Roads Back to Governmental Slavery.‖ Joining Senator Reed as banquet speakers were
Attorney General John W. Bricker, whose antipathy toward the New Deal was already wellknown, and Chief Justice Carl V. Weygandt.
The Association at its Toledo meeting acceded to the request of the Judicial Administration
and Legal Reform Committee that its draft of a constitutional amendment on the selection and
tenure of judges by referred back to the group for additional study and review. By mid-March the
Committee had redrafted the amendment to provide for appointment by the Governor with the
advice and consent of the Senate of all judges of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals.
Appointments would be made from a list submitted by the Judicial Council, the composition of
which was provided in the amendment. The judges would hold office during good behavior, and
every six years would be obliged to run against their records. The draft also provided that the
system could be extended on a local option basis to the Court of Common Pleas if a majority of
the electors in the county voted in favor of it. Provision was also included for action by the
General Assembly to create a retirement plan for judges. The draft, with some minor
amendments, was endorsed by a vote of 209 to 72 at the Annual Meeting in Columbus in July.
The new provision in the Association‘s Constitution calling for a Council of Delegates
appointed by the local bar associations was adopted mainly because of complaints that local bar
associations had no voice in the operation of the State Bar. It quickly became evident that the
complaints may have been somewhat hollow—after sending notices to all local bar associations
requesting them to designate their members of the new Council of Delegates, the meager
response made it necessary to run two articles in the Ohio BAR urging local bar associations to
act.
The Republican National Convention was scheduled for Cleveland in June 1936. One of the
local newspapers planned to run a special edition at the time of the convention containing
pictures and biographical sketches of each of the delegates, for which a charge of $50 per head
would be made. Upon being solicited by the paper, a lawyer-delegate inquired of the Ohio State
Bar Association‘s Legal Ethics Committee if it was proper for an attorney to allow his
photograph and professional history to be published for a fee. The opinion of the Professional
Ethics Committee was, ―No!‖ The opinion was publicized in the Ohio BAR and probably saved a
lot of lawyer-delegates $50 each, which was a handsome sum in 1936.
Ethics, Discipline, and the Lawyer‟s Public Image
President George R. Murray of Dayton began his administration by calling a meeting of local
bar association officers and representatives of the Ohio State Bar Association in Columbus in
October 1936. Such a meeting had been held the previous year and drew a large attendance. The
committee chairmen presented various matters under consideration by their groups, urged help of
the local bar officers on those matters on involving legislative action.
The growth of the committee and section structure of the Association and the increasing
number of services begin rendered to members made it necessary to increase the office staff.
Thomas F. O‘Shaughnessy of Columbus was named Assistant Secretary, to serve with William
M. Hunter of Dayton, who held the same title. The Association itself was growing at an
increasing pace. In 1936 and 1937 almost 900 lawyers were admitted to membership. Included in
this number were David S. Porter of Troy, who would become Chief Judge of the federal District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Ellis W. Kerr, who would be come Prosecuting
Attorney of Miami County and federal Bankruptcy Judge.
Unethical solicitation of business, i.e. ―ambulance chasing,‖ was a matter of such concern in
Mahoning County that a lawyers vigilante group was organized by 165 members of the bar of
that county, who petitioned the Common Pleas Court for a judicial inquiry. Also on the subject
of ethics, the Cleveland Bar Association asked the Ohio Supreme Court to assume sole
jurisdiction of the reinstatement of suspended or disbarred lawyers. The request was triggered by
the action of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County in reinstating four men to practice
over the objection of the Cleveland Bar Association. It is interesting to note that the chairman of
the committee which drafted the resolution to the Supreme Court was Benjamin C. Boer who,
sixteen years later when he was President of the State Bar, sounded the call which resulted in the
Supreme Court assuming complete control of the disciplinary process, including reprimand,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement.
The Ohio BAR of November 23, 1936 contained a brief note to the effect that Joseph D.
Stecker of Toledo, Chairman of the Junior Bar Conference of the American Bar Association, had
appointed a Columbus lawyer as state chairman for Ohio for the conference. It was an important
appointment, and marked the first step on the ladder to the presidency of the American Bar
Association for Earl F. Morris. In the same announcement, Stecker designated Fred Smith of
Toledo as a member of the Committee on Publications. All three of these men—Stecker, Morris
and Smith—served a President of the Ohio State Bar Association, and each made a substantial
and lasting contribution: Stecker was instrumental in the constitutional revision of 1947; Smith
and Morris were guiding forces in planning the Ohio Legal Center.
January 1937 was a busy month for the Ohio State Bar Association. On January 5 the House
of Delegates of the American Bar Association met in Columbus. Welcoming addresses were
delivered by President Murray and John W. Bricker, President of the Columbus Bar Association.
The House endorsed a judicial selection plan similar to the one which the Ohio State Bar
Association was proposing for Ohio. An area of concern for the House was the overcrowding of
the legal profession, and among the suggestions offered were the raising of standards for
education and admission to the bar and the establishment of a quota system for each locality.
When the ABA House of Delegates adjourned the Ohio members moved on to Dayton for the
mid-winter meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association at the Biltmore Hotel. A dinner on the first
evening honored the American Bar Association visitors. The speakers were George Maurice
Morris of Washington, D. C., Chairman of the House of Delegates, and Frederick H. Stinchfield
of Minneapolis, President of the American Bar Association.
President Murray, unlike his predecessor, exercised his option to address the assembled
Buckeye barristers. He chose as his themes the low esteem in which lawyers were held by the
public and the need for improved disciplinary procedures. Murray contended that he sharp rise in
unauthorized practice was caused in part by the lack of confidence which the public had in
lawyers. He then offered a proposal to return to the Supreme Court control over disbarment,
which it had not exercised since 1909. He suggested that the Association‘s Legal Ethics
Committee be designated by the Supreme Court to act as a board of commissioners to investigate
complaints against members of the bar, and to make recommendations to the Court where a
hearing would be had on the recommendations. Murray proposed that the committee be
increased in size so that there would be five members from each appellate district, who would
investigate and take testimony in their district and report to the whole committee. Thus, the seed
of the idea which future President Benjamin C. Boer finalized in 1952 was planted.
Like most of his predecessors and successors, Murray decried the lack of interest in bar
association work by the majority of the legal profession. He read excerpts from a letter to a
Dayton newspaper from a lawyer who said among other things, ―In the leadership for the benefit
of their clients, in securing social, economic improvement, the Dayton Bar Association and the
State Bar Association have not been, and are not now, worth a continental.‖ Murray noted that
the author of the letter had not appeared at a bar association meeting in twenty years.
A new section was organized by the Executive Committee, to be known as the Insurance
Section. Its first chairman was Francis Dean Schnacke of Dayton. Schnacke, Murray Smith and
Boyd M. Compton had just announced their association together for the practice of law in the
Callahan Building.
The Junior Bar Section, headed by J. Robert Jones of Columbus, scheduled a bread and butter
program with Howard L. Barkdull speaking on the new Probate Code and Byron E. Ford of
Columbus discussing Office Management and Fees.
The beginning of another legislative session in January did not worry the Association‘s
leaders as it usually did—three lawyers occupied leadership positions in the 92nd Ohio General
Assembly, and two of them were members of the Ohio State Bar Association. Frank R. Uible of
Cleveland was Speaker of the House, and Jacob E. Davis of Waverly (at the age of thirty-one)
was Majority Floor Leader. On the Senate side, Keith Lawrence of Cleveland was President pro
tem. Unfortunately, the Association‘s legislative program was generally limited, since 1937 was
given over mainly to gearing up for the drive to secure an appointive judiciary in the Supreme
Court and court of appeals. A strong statewide committee, headed by Joseph C. Hostetler of
Cleveland, was appointed by President Murray. Fred J. Milligan of Columbus, secretary of the
committee, opened his office to the group as a headquarters. John M. Vorys, also of Columbus,
was treasurer. Chairmen were selected in the various counties and the drive to circulate petitions
to place the issue on the ballot began.
There was action on another front. In Washington, the President sought to ―pack‖ the
Supreme Court, i.e. name justices in addition to the traditional nine in order to secure approval of
some proposals which had run afoul of the Constitution and been overturned. Feeling ran high
among American lawyers over this threatened action. The American Bar Association conducted
a poll of its membership on the question, and the President‘s proposal was rejected by 16,132 to
2,563. The Ohio State Bar Association also polled its 3,490 members, who voted nearly six to
one against the plan. In Akron and Youngstown the opposition against packing the Supreme
Court was strongest of all the large cities in the state. In Youngstown the margin was twenty to
one. In the smaller towns of Ohio, the vote was five to one against the packing plan.
The Annual Meeting of the Association was set for July 8, 9, and 10 at Cedar Point, and
promised to be politically active. The constitutional amendments of January 1936 made special
provision for a Council of Delegates which, among other things, was authorized to conduct the
election of the members of the Executive Committee and the Vice President for each appellate
district. In actual practice the Council received nominations for the offices to be filled and
transmitted them to the Secretary, who then mailed ballots to the members of the Association in
each appellate district. These ballots would be counted at the Annual Meeting and the successful
candidates installed immediately. Although these provisions were calculated to inspire interest in
the State Bar by local associations, only two contests developed for seats on the Executive
Committee. In these contests Murray M. Shoemaker defeated A. Julius Freiberg and Harry S.
Wonnelll in the First District, and William A. Mason of Youngstown unseated the incumbent,
Judge Carl H. Smith of Steubenville.
Walter S. Ruff of Canton was unopposed in the election for President. Ruff had served as City
Solicitor of Canton and Prosecuting Attorney of Stark County, and as a member of the Ohio
Senate. A partner in the firm of Black, McCuskey, Ruff & Souers, he had the distinction of being
the last man who had obtained his legal training by studying in a law office to be President of the
Association.
President Murray obtained an outstanding group of speakers for the Annual Meeting. They
included Congressman James W. Wadsworth of New York, and Glenn Frank of Madison,
Wisconsin, the former President of the University of Wisconsin. Murray resumed the custom of a
presidential address and spoke on the subject of, ―The Lawyer and the Public.‖ In detailing the
low esteem in which the bar is held by the public, Murray quoted from Hector St. Jean de
Crevecoeur‘s ―Letters of an American Farmer.‖ It was there stated, ―Lawyers are plants that will
grow in any soil that is cultivated by the hands of others, and when they have taken root they will
extinguish every vegetable that grows around them. The fortunes they daily acquire in every
province from the misfortunes of their fellow citizens are surprising. What a pity that our
forefathers, who happily extinguished so many fatal customs, and expunged from their
government so many errors and abuses, both religious and civil, did not also prevent the
introduction of a set of men so dangerous.‖
The President then sought out the reasons for this attitude on the part of writers and the public.
Noting that there was one lawyer for every 763 persons in the United States, he said that this
situation encouraged a class of practitioners he called ―marginal lawyers.‖ He pointed out that in
one Ohio city a law office was operated in conjunction with a keyshop in the basement of a
hotel, that another part-time lawyer doubled as a barber, and that still another conducted his law
business along with his trades of tinsmith and welder. These marginal lawyers contributed to the
general economic distress which in turn gave rise to defalcations by members of the bar. It was
these defectors who hurt the public and brought the entire profession into disrepute.
Congressman James W. Wadsworth‘s address was entitled ―Amending the Constitution.‖ In
the light of the present-day controversy over the Equal Rights Amendment, Wadsworth‘s
remarks are of interest. He pointed out that in 1937 there were at least five proposed amendments
to the Constitution which had not received the approval of three-fourths of the states and were
still outstanding. The two oldest had been submitted as part of a package, some portions of which
were ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Another had been submitted to the states
two days before Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as President and was still in limbo (it
provided in substance that the federal government had no right to interfere with any domestic
institution within a state, including slavery. The Ohio Legislature approved it). The child labor
amendment had been submitted to the states in 1924, and had a tumultuous history. In all, thirtyeight states had rejected it, some more than once—Kansas and Texas each voted it down five
different times. Noting that the average time that had been consumed in securing ratification of
the existing amendments to the Constitution was one year and seven months, Congressman
Wadsworth suggested that it behooved the Congress to make some provision that when more
than one-fourth of the states rejected an amendment, it would be dead. He further advocated
establishing a time limit by which action must be taken by the states.
The drive for signatures on the petitions to place the judicial selection amendment on the
ballot fell short. Chairman Joseph C. Hostetler announced that the petitions were so drawn as to
be still usable in 1938, and the effort would continue with a view to getting the proposal on the
ballot in 1938.
The Ohio State Bar Association lost one of its most distinguished members, and Americans
lost one of their greatest citizens, when Newton D. Baker died on Christmas Day 1937. He had
served his city, state and nation in public office and had served the Ohio State Bar Association
and the profession unstintingly. His work in behalf of the proposal for selection and tenure of
judges had been invaluable.
The Battle for an Appointive Judiciary
The neatly-printed program of the mid-winter meeting held in the Deshler-Wallick Hotel in
Columbus lists the cost of the luncheon tickets at $1, those for the dinner on Thursday evening
$1.50, and those for the annual banquet (which included dancing afterwards) at $2. Also
noteworthy are the names which appear in the program. Twenty Association Presidents, past and
future, participated in the meeting as committee members, speakers, or panel members: Howard
L. Barkdull of Cleveland (1938); Phil S. Bradford of Columbus (1930); Donald A. Finkbeiner of
Toledo (1940); Gerritt J. Fredriks of Cincinnati (1939); Robert Guinther of Akron (1932);
Howard F. Guthery of Marion (1946); George B. Harris of Cleveland (1922); Judge William L.
Hart of Alliance (1923); Andrew S. Iddings of Dayton (1942); A. R. Johnson of Ironton (1933);
Simeon M. Johnson of Cincinnati (1912); John M. McCabe of Toledo (1926); Earl F. Morris of
Columbus (1957); William G. Pickrel of Dayton (1929); Province M. Pogue of Cincinnati
(1925); Charles W. Racine of Toledo (1935); Walter A. Ryan of Cincinnati (1931); Fred A.
Smith of Toledo (1956); and George W. Spooner of Cleveland (1934). Two of these men,
Howard L. Barkdull and Earl F. Morris, brought honor to Ohio by their election to the
presidency of the American Bar Association.
The same program indicates that the legal profession was family-oriented. Many of the men
who participated in the 1938 mid-winter meeting had relatives who preceded or succeeded them
in the law. Andrews Iddings‘ brother, Daniel W. Iddings, was president of the Association in
1920. Henry J. Crawford of Cleveland, Chairman of the Real Estate Section in 1938, was the son
of Harry Crawford, a prominent trial lawyer with the firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. Fred J.
Milligan, Sr. had two sons, Fred J. Jr. and David T., who are now practicing with him in
Westerville. Judge William L. Hart had two sons who followed him in the practice.
Several sons of the lawyers who were in attendance at Columbus in 1938 are or have been
leaders in the Association. Harold F. Adams‘ son John was President of the Ohio State Bar
Association in 1979. Loren E. Souers‘ son Loren, Jr., was named President-Elect in 1979, and
Loren III is now practicing law in Canton. Edward Marks of Cincinnati, a member of the
Executive Committee for 1978-1981, is the son of Grauman Marks, who chaired the Legal
Education Committee in 1938. Charles M. Buss, one of the nine Vice-Presidents in 1938, was
the father of Dwight E. Buss, who served on the Council of Delegates of the Ohio State Bar
Association and later was president of the Cleveland Bar Association. A grandson, William
Buss, is now practicing law in Cleveland.
President Walter S. Ruff of Canton presided over an action-packed meeting in 1938, which
included give-and-take discussions on numerous subjects of interest to the bar. One such matter
was the time for holding the meetings of the Association. Whether the hazards of traveling on
Ohio roads in the winter and encountering the deteriorating conditions at Cedar Point motivated
the lawyers to seek new alternatives is not clear, but agitation for spring and fall meetings was
beginning. The Judicial Section held a discussion on the same subject. Obviously something was
in the wind.
The general luncheon of the Association of Friday faced stiff competition even though the
price was only $1. The law schools of the University of Cincinnati, Harvard, Michigan, Ohio
Northern, Ohio State, and Western Reserve, and the Common Pleas Judges, all held conflicting
luncheon meetings.
The principal speakers at the banquet were the crusading President of the American Bar
Association, Arthur T. Vanderbilt, and Professor W. Barton Leach of the Harvard Law School.
Vanderbilt will long be remembered for his persistence and tremendous contributions to the
cause of judicial reorganization and court reform, which he wryly said was, ―not a sport for the
short-winded.‖ When introducing Professor Leach, President Ruff said that he would speak on a
highly technical, abstruse legal subject, and immediately that were a noticeable exodus from the
Deshler ballroom. Undaunted, Leach reached under the podium, picked up his accordion, and
delighted his audience with musical selections interspersed with humorous anecdotes. Dancing
concluded the evening, but the record is silent on whether Professor Leach provided the music
for it.
1938 marked the deepest involvement ever of the Ohio State Bar Association in a state-wide
political campaign. For years oratory had flowed freely in favor of an appointive judiciary, and
now it was time for action instead of words. Petitions were circulated to place on the ballot a
constitutional amendment to provide for the limited appointment of judges of the Courts of
Appeals and the Supreme Court. In 1937 the requisite number of signatures had not been
obtained, but the drive was successful in 1938. A full-scale campaign was mounted to acquaint
the public with the merits of the plan. A brilliant array of past, present and future leaders of the
Association traveled to every corner of Ohio addressing service clubs, community forums, and
similar groups. Editorial support from the Cincinnati Enquirer and other papers was received.
Also, the hard work of so many dedicated individuals was in vain—the amendment failed to
carry a single county and was defeated by a two-to-one majority.
In his address to the Mid-Winter Meeting President Walter S. Ruff of Canton raised once
again the issue of integration of the bar. This was not a sport for the short-winded either, since
the issue had first been discussed in 1920 and had resurfaced periodically ever since. In the
1920‘s it was known as statutory incorporation of the bar, but in 1933 President Guinther had
suggested integration by Supreme Court rule. Ruff favored integration by court rule: ―The only
equitable, satisfactory and salutary was to integrate the Bar of Ohio is by rule of the Supreme
Court.‖ He noted that the bars of nineteen states and one territory were then integrated, either by
statute or by court rule. His proposal fell on deaf ears.
The Annual, or Summer Meeting, of the Ohio State Bar Association convened in Cleveland
on July 25, 1938. It was an auspicious occasion, because the Forest City was also host to the
American Bar Association the same week. President Ruff stated that he had given his
presidential address at the Mid-Winter Meeting and that his remarks on this occasion would be
limited. He expressed regret that the delegates present had rejected the proposal for integration of
the bar and urged his successor to keep the question before the Association.
The president suggested that the time was near when some action would have to be taken to
limit the number of persons seeking admission to the bar. Noting that other professions had taken
such steps, Ruff said, ―We cannot permit the practice of law to develop into a mere trade in
which anyone who qualifies may engage.‖ Perhaps it is fortunate that President Ruff did not live
to see the admission explosion of the 1970‘s.
The convention closed with the election of Howard L Barkdull of Cleveland to the presidency.
For Barkdull the new position was a stepping stone to an even greater honor, the presidency of
the American Bar Association.
***
President Howard L. Barkdull used the pages of the Ohio BAR to publicize his program for
1938-1939. The new President was known for his orderly mind and the meticulous manner in
which he performed every task assigned to him, and his eight-point program was proof positive
of his organizational ability. His priorities included: the constitutional amendment for the
appointive judiciary; revision of the marriage and divorce codes; expansion of the work of the
Publications Committee; adaptation of the Federal Rules of Procedure to Ohio practice; creation
of a law revision commission; prevention of the unauthorized practice of law; closer cooperation
with the American Bar Association; and increased membership for the Ohio State Bar
Association.
The Council of Delegates met in Columbus in September to begin implementing President
Barkdull‘s objectives. Since it was a state election year, politics were in the air. Each of the four
candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court was furnished with a questionnaire to be completed
concerning his qualifications, and the answers to these questionnaires formed the basis for a
round-table discussion at the meeting of the Council of Delegates. Officers of local bar
associations were invited to attend and participate, and approximately 100 lawyers were in
attendance. Association committee chairmen discussed various measures pending in their
committees.
The response to the judicial questionnaires and the report of additional information gathered
by independent investigation provoked lively discussion at the meeting and was later printed in
the Ohio BAR. Moreover, at the Council‘s request the Executive Committee released the
information gained from the judicial questionnaires to the newspapers. Among the tidbits
gathered and printed were the fact that one candidate had been adjudged guilty of contempt of
court for failure to pay child support, and that another candidate (who had an extremely limited
education) had obtained a court order changing his surname to that of a popular Ohio judge.
Neither candidate was successful, but failure on this occasion did not deter either of them from
several future campaigns for public office.
Complaints were voiced by Sol Goodman of Cincinnati, Chairman of the Council of
Delegates, and President Barkdull, concerning the apparent impotency of the Council of
Delegates. Its only authority was to make recommendations to the Executive Committee.
Goodman pointed out that the Council had been created to provide greater input by the local bar
associations into state Association affairs, and a motion requesting the Executive Committee to
appoint a committee to study the feasibility of amending the Constitution to provide broader
powers for the Council was adopted.
***
In the fall of 1938 the Ohio State Bar Association again mounted a campaign to secure
passage of an appointive judiciary amendment to the Constitution. By herculean effort the
requisite number of signatures had been obtained to place the issue on the ballot. The Franklin
county Board of Elections had, however, thrown out 2,900 names, principally because signers
had given a current address rather than the address shown on the Board‘s records. The Supreme
Court had held in 1933 that this was not a valid ground for voiding a signature, so a protest was
filed and 2,400 names were restored. Similar protests were filed in Hamilton and Lucas
Counties, and most of the names that had been disallowed were validated in Hamilton and Lucas
Counties. The issue was certified for the November ballot by Secretary of State William J.
Kennedy and the battle was renewed.
The Ohio Committee on Judicial Selection organized a speakers‘ bureau and arranged for
speeches before service clubs, parent-teacher organizations, church groups and public meetings.
In Cincinnati the proposal received a strong endorsement from the Enquirer. A campaign
organization was set up on the Queen City with Chester R. Shook as Chairman and Jack B.
Josselsen as Secretary. The Youngstown Vindicator said, ―If it [the judicial amendment] s
adopted in this state, we shall quickly feel its effects in a better and more respected judiciary.‖
The Zanesville Recorder also urged adoption, saying ―…it would eliminate the ‗shoulder
slappers‘ and the ‗baby kissers‘ thereby insuring judicial decisions by men who know the law
and whose judgments will not be warped by political considerations.‖
The opponents of the amendment were not idle. Carrington T. Marshall, former Chief Justice
of the Ohio Supreme Court, sounded an unfair charge in a speech at the Neil House. He said, ―…
even if they did take 50,000 to 60,000 names off tombstones to get enough signatures to put it on
the ballot, you are going to defeat it.‖ Organized labor jumped into the fray against the
amendment. What the arguments of the opposition, whether true or false, they were effective.
Judicial reform suffered a second overwhelming defeat at the hands of the Ohio electorate. The
final tally was 594,509 for and 1,166,812 against, and the measure failed to carry any of Ohio‘s
eighty-eight counties.
An amendment to the Ohio State Bar Association Constitution was adopted at the mid-winter
meeting in 1938 to meet objections often voiced by members about the necessity of traveling
over Ohio‘s icy roads in the dead of winter and having to endure the oppressive heat in July.
Under the new amendments meetings were to be held in April and October, with the latter
designated as the Annual Meeting. The God of storms ignored the change, however, and when
the lawyers of Ohio gathered in Columbus on April 13, 1939, those coming from northern Ohio
had to brave a heavy snow, and torrential rains fell on the second day of the meeting.
Several controversial matters were on the agenda. The Judicial Council had recommended the
adoption of parts of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure to modernize Ohio practice. A bill to
accomplish this purpose had been introduced in the Ohio House by Representative George B.
Marshall of Columbus, but it faced stiff opposition. To acquaint the lawyers with the subject, a
debate was scheduled, with former President Robert Guinther of Akron speaking in favor of the
federal Rules and Judge Chauncey L. Newcomer of Bryan taking the negative side. Judge
Newcomer‘s arguments must have been convincing, because it was more than thirty years before
the federal Rules were substantially incorporated into Ohio‘s new Rules of Civil Procedure
(some provisions were adopted by statute in the interim).
The Bar Integration Issue Resurfaces
The immediate Past President, Walter S. Ruff, presented another hot issue at the 1939 spring
meeting: integration of the bar. The report of his committee on the subject called for integration
by rule of court. It immediately produced fireworks, and the matter was continued for
consideration at the October meeting in Cleveland.
Secretary J. L. W. Henney had gathered a galaxy of speakers. The Republicans had swept the
fall elections in 1938 in Ohio and now controlled the legislature and the major state offices.
Several of the newly-elected officials were on the program for the Spring Meeting. John W.
Bricker, long active in the Ohio State Bar Association, was now the Governor, and he and Frank
J. Hogan of Washington, President of the American Bar Association, were the banquet speakers.
William M. McCulloch, a Piqua lawyer who was the new Speaker of the Ohio House of
Representatives, addressed the Municipal Law Section.
President Howard J. Barkdull‘s address was a preview of the committee reports which were to
be submitted to the meeting. He had launched a plan to explain and promote the Association‘s
legislative program through a series of regional meetings, eight of which were held in smaller
cities for the benefit of lawyers in eighty-three rural counties, and five of which were held in
large metropolitan areas. Thus, the President could report that the lawyers in every county of the
state had had ample opportunity to learn about Association-sponsored legislation. He also
announced a new project calculated to assist local bar associations, in which representatives of
the Association traveled around the state to confer with local bar officers and share their
knowledge and experience.
Special attention was given to membership during the Barkdull administration. Earl R.
Hoover of Cleveland was appointed Chairman of the Membership Committee, and he
approached the task with enthusiasm and thoroughness. Chairmen were appointed for each of the
nine appellate districts then existing, and sub-chairmen were named in every county. A goal of
1,000 new members had been set and President Barkdull could report that nearly 500 had already
been obtained. Harold J. Meredith in the Third District and Thomas M. Powers in the Ninth
District earned special commendations for their efforts. Meredith obtained forty-three new
members, or 122% of his goal, and Powers obtained seventy-four, or 112% of his goal.
The problem of publication of court opinions and textbooks still plagued the bar. A committee
chaired by A. H. West of Elyria undertook a study of the problem, and prepared and circulated a
questionnaire among members of the bar of Ohio in order to sample opinions on such subjects as
endorsement by the Association of certain publications, reducing the number of books containing
case reports, and the use of advance sheets. After the questionnaire went out, the Ohio Law
Abstract Publishing Company sent a letter to all members of the Association outlining a plan
which had already been rejected by the Executive Committee, and asking the members to
comment on it in their answers to the questionnaire. Thereupon the Publications Committee
inserted a notice in the Ohio BAR urging the members to answer and return the questionnaire and
disregard the company‘s letter.
As the work of the Association expanded, so too did the burdens of operating the Columbus
office. J. L. W. Henney now had two assistants, Jerome Z. Gordon and J. Robert Swartz. Both
were extremely helpful in the membership campaign.
***
For the first time in its history, the Ohio State Bar Association held its Annual Meeting in
October. The convention promised to be interesting: officers of the Association and its various
sections were to be elected; and the subject of integration of the bar was on the agenda and was
creating a sharp division in the membership. On the lighter side a new diversion, the Notre
Dame-Navy football game would attract the gentlemen to Cleveland Stadium, and the ladies
would be entertained with an outstanding program including a style show at the Halle Brothers
Company, a dutch-treat Supper at the University Club, a theatre party at Keith‘s Palace, a
luncheon at the Shaker Heights Country Club, and the annual banquet and ball at the Statler
Hotel. Speakers for the meeting included Robert A. Taft of Cincinnati, who was serving his first
term in the U.S. Senate, Judge John J. Parker of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Carl R.
Henry, the President of the State Bar of Michigan, who described the operation of the integration
bar in that state.
Prior to the convention, the Cuyahoga County Bar Association placed a statement in the Ohio
BAR opposing the bar integration proposal. Calling it ―a lawyers‘ union‖, ―dictatorship‖ and
―regimentation,‖ the statement claimed that the plan would destroy local bar associations. When
the matter came before the convention, a motion to conduct a referendum among the members
was offered and adopted.
The Junior Bar Section was addressed by Luther Day, a prominent Cleveland attorney, and
the son of former Justice William Day of the U.S. Supreme Court. Day gave the young lawyers a
piece of practical advice, saying ―It is always advisable when a problem is presented to think it
through and come to an independent conclusion before any examination of authorities is made.‖
Committee reports produced a number of interesting features. Chairman Earl R. Hoover‘s
membership Committee gathered 1,205 new members, easily exceeding the goal of 1,000 which
it had set by President Barkdull. The Corporation Law Committee extended a signal honor to E.
J. Marshall of Toledo, who had chaired the group when the Corporation Code was drafted, by
making him a permanent ex-officio member of the committee. The report of the Treasurer, J. L.
W. Henney, was audited by a committee consisting of three Columbus lawyers, Hugh
Huntington, Chairman, Harold F. Adams and Fred J. Milligan. To everyone‘s discomfort,
disbursements exceeded income by about $400. The blame could not be placed on expenditures
for the Association meetings, since the fall meeting of 1938 cost only $533.19, and the larger
spring gathering cost only $786.14. Inflation was still in the future.
Elections are always an exciting time at Association meetings and the excitement was
intensified at the Cleveland gathering. Each of the three candidates for President, Charles D.
Fogle of Marietta, Gerritt J. Fredricks of Cincinnati, and Andrew S. Mitchell of Newark had
served long and faithfully on Association committees and in civil work in their home
communities. Gerritt Fredriks emerged the victor.
Another election at the fall meeting was worth noting. Earl Morris of Columbus was chosen to
succeed John K. Bartram of Marion as President of the Junior Bar Section. Morris established a
pattern, in that Morris and at least four other lawyers, who held the presidency of the Junior Bar
subsequently became Presidents of the Ohio State Bar Association.
The late fall of 1939 saw an event of importance to the legal profession in Ohio. The
Columbiana County Bar Association erected a monument on what had once been the Matthias
Lower Farm in Fairfield Township. It was in the Lower farmhouse that the Supreme Court of
Ohio, established by the Constitution of 1802, held its first session in 1803 in the newly-erected
County of Columbiana. The judges of that early court were chosen by the legislature, and were
Samuel Huntington of Trumbull County, Return Jonathan Meigs of Washington County, and
William Sprigg of Jefferson County (only two of them sat at the first session in the Lower
farmhouse). The work of the Court on that 14th day of June in 1803 consisted of appointing a
clerk, Reasin Beall, admitting four attorneys to practice and appointing one of them, Obadiah
Jennings of Steubenville, as Prosecutor.
CHAPTER EIGHT
WAR AND PEACE
“Unless international anarchy is subjected to juridical order, force will prevail
over reason and evolution will give way to revolution …
“If the next great step in social evolution is to be taken before disaster overtakes
us, if we are to fulfill our destiny without being bombed into it, there must now be
a popular awakening, a spiritual revival, a political ground-swell. If such a
popular movement is to materialize, it will require the impetus and direction of
men trained in political and legal thought. It will require an organized group of
such men, a group whose members are in contact with all classes of people, a
group motivated by the professional spirit, that spirit which puts service above
self. The legal profession would supply such need …”
Hon. Robert N. Wilkin
U. S. District Judge
***
The Bar Integration Issue Laid to Rest
President Gerritt J. Fredriks opened the year 1940 by appointing the members of the various
state bar committees and outlining the duties of each group. With the rapid growth in the number
of committees occasional jurisdictional conflicts arose, but by carefully delineating the sphere of
activity of each it was hoped this problem would be eliminated.
No sooner had one difficulty been overcome when another appeared. The headquarters office
received several complaints about a bunco artist who called upon lawyers and retained them to
represent him to recover damages allegedly sustained in an accident with a truck owned by a
large trucking company. The imposter gave a plausible story and each attorney believed there
was good ground for a substantial recovery. The imposter would then plead poverty and extract
four or five dollars from the lawyer to tide him over, and that would be the last time the lawyer
would ever see him. He was caught and served thirty days in jail, but his early success prompted
him to try again. The trucking company sent copies of letters from five attorneys demanding
settlements for the imposter‘s alleged injuries, and it was felt necessary to insert an article
warning the members of the Association in the Ohio BAR.
The Ohio BAR of February 12, 1940 contained an excellent review by Ian Bruce Hart and
William L. Hart, Jr. of Ohio case law. The authors were following in the footsteps of their
illustrious father, Judge William L. Hart of the Ohio Supreme Court, who had inaugurated the
review several years before. Lawyers at that time looked forward to the Hart summary of Ohio
decisions as being a dependable way of keeping abreast of the ever-growing volume of case law.
The same issue of the Ohio BAR reported the travels of the remarkable Murray Seasongood.
The former Cincinnati Mayor and authority on municipal law was born in 1878, two years before
the founding of the Ohio State Bar Association. Now, at age 62, within a span of five days he
delivered lectures in Baltimore, Maryland, Atlantic City, New Jersey, Quincy, Massachusetts,
and Cincinnati. The Massachusetts speech carried the intriguing title, ―Are Our Cities Doomed?‖
April brought the Spring meeting of the Association, held at the Deshler-Wallick Hotel in
Columbus, which saw the introduction of several measures then considered revolutionary but
which have since become commonplace. Professor Silas A. Harris, of the College of Law of The
Ohio State University, discussed the startling concept of delivery of legal services to the public
and especially to people of low incomes. He noted that legal service bureaus and neighborhood
law offices had been opened in New York and Philadelphia, and suggested that each local bar
association had a responsibility to see that legal services were available to the entire community.
The subject of integration of the bar was still simmering. Frank N. Drake of Louisville,
Kentucky, described the Kentucky experience. He told the story of how Governor A. B. ―Happy‖
Chandler had made a promise to a county clerk back in the mountains that, if elected, he
(Chandler) would get the man a license to practice law. Chandler was elected and caused a bill to
be introduced in the legislature to redeem his promise. The members of the integrated bar
committee, however, descended on Frankfort and convinced the Governor of his error, and the
bill was lost. In his argument for an integrated bar Drake offered a new thought—he noted that
there were few young people in the audience, and stated that this would not be true if everyone
had to belong to the bar association. President Frederiks later announced that a poll of the entire
membership would be taken on the question of bar integration.
James Olds of Akron submitted one of the most thought-provoking reports to the meeting. He
stated that a survey had been conducted in Akron to determine the economic status of lawyer,
and the response to the survey showed that lawyers possessing both college and law school
degrees averaged income of $4,400 per year, while those who possessed only a law school
degree averaged $3,300 per year. For anyone without a law degree it was hard sledding—no
figures were given, but Olds said that the median was much lower. For young lawyers with five
years or less of practice, the figure was $1,500. Olds also reported that the only reason the
averages were as high as they were was because a few lawyers earned very high annual incomes.
He then echoed a complaint frequently hears today—office overhead swallowed too large a
proportion of gross income.
Following the Spring Meeting the canvass of the membership on the bar integration proposal
was undertaken. The ballots had been mailed out with careful instructions on marking and
mailing. The results were announced on June 8, and the final tally was 1,134 for integration and
1,602 against it. It was necessary to invalidate thirty-two ballots in spite of the specific
instructions. Thirteen of the defective ballots came from Cleveland. The result of the canvass
effectively killed bar integration as a viable issue in Ohio, almost exactly twenty years from the
time it first arose.
Thoughts on Ethics and Admissions
A peculiar quirk in Ohio law was revealed in 1940. Judge David Copland of the Cleveland
Municipal Court had been disbarred because of a series of transgressions, but when the
disciplinary proceedings were finally concluded Copland remained on the bench. A search of the
law revealed that disbarment of a lawyer does not remove him from the bench. Various collateral
attacks were tried unsuccessfully, and a demand for the judge‘s resignation fell upon deaf ears.
An attempt was made to withhold his salary, but Cleveland Law Director Henry S. Brainard
ruled that this could not be done unless Copland resigned or was removed in accordance with the
law. Brainard then outlined the various statutory methods for removing a judge. The Cleveland
Bar Association and the local newspapers called for legislative action to cure the defect in the
disbarment statutes which allowed such a situation to exist. Unfortunately, the legislature was
not in session, and month after month the disbarred judge continued to set and draw his salary.
When the legislature convened in January 1941 a resolution calling for Copland‘s removal was
offered in the Senate and, concurrently, County Prosecutor Frank T. Cullitan field a quo
warranto action in the Supreme Court to test Copland‘s right to hold office. Apparently the
miscreant got the message, because on March 10, 1941 he tendered his resignation to Governor
John W. Bricker, who promptly accepted it.
The changing times in the law were reflected in an announcement by Arthur t. Martin, the
new dean of the College of Law at Ohio State. A new curriculum placing emphasis on vocational
competency and social consciousness was inaugurated for the fall term. The goal, according to
Dean Martin, was to place special emphasis in the third year on the synthesis of legal, economic,
political, social, and practical principles.
The June bar examination produced a bumper crop of lawyers from the standpoint of both
quality and quantity. The total of 245 (75% of those taking the test) were successful, and this was
the highest pass rate in recent years. It is significant that all but a few of the applicants were
graduates of recognized law schools. As far as the Ohio State Bar Association was concerned it
was truly a great class—three future president, William L. Howland of Portsmouth, Roger H.
Smith of Toledo and Loren E. Souers, Jr. of Canton were in the group. In addition, Kenneth F.
Berry of Coshocton, Ralph E. Clark, Jr. of Cincinnati, Sumner J. Walters of Van Wert, and
Bernhardt G. Zeiher of Sandusky, all of whom later served on the Executive Committee, were
members of this group.
The term of President Gerritt J. Fredriks reached its climax in his hometown when the lawyers
of Ohio gathered at the Hotel Gibson in Cincinnati for the Fall Meeting. The Council of
Delegates scheduled speeches on two relatively new concepts in the law. The first was a
discussion of pretrial conferences. Ellis R. Diehm of Cleveland viewed its operation in a
metropolitan area and Raymond S. Buzzard of East Liverpool spoke on the system in a small
county. Second, the idea of legal internship was being considered as a means of bridging the gap
between law school and actual practice, and William H. Nieman of Cincinnati expounded on that
subject.
At the Junior Bar luncheon, President Earl f. Morris presented Murray Seasongood as the
principal speaker, whose topic was, ―Medes and Persian Law—Does It Still Exist?‖ He answered
the title question in the negative by describing how the law changes to meet changing conditions.
This started, according to Seasongood, when the Medes and Persians tossed Daniel into the
lions‘ den to punish him for violating their law. When the lions refused to devour him, the law
was changed, and Daniel‘s accusers were themselves thrown to the lions.
The annual banquet is always an important part of the State Bar Convention, and the
Cincinnati meeting was no exception. The mayor of the Queen City, James Garfield Stewart, was
laying the ground work for a future bid for high state office. Locally, he had an enviable—and
well deserved—reputation as a raconteur. President Fredriks chose him to be the toastmaster, and
he performed in inimitable style, delighting his audience with many anecdotes. Two banquet
speakers were on the program. The first was Governor John W. Bricker, who spoke on the rapid
growth of administrative boards and commissions and the resultant loose rules of procedure in
the practice before these agencies. It was a timely address, because the Administrative Law
Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association was deeply involved in preparing and sponsoring
legislation to regulate this area of state government. The second speaker was Jacob M. Lashly of
St. Louis, the President of the American Bar Association, who urged the legal profession to be
eternally watchful to maintain the heritage of freedom.
In all, 602 members of the Association took part in the Cincinnati meeting. In the contest for
President, between Donald a. Finkbeiner of Toledo and Chester G. Wise of Akron, Finkbeiner
won by 326 to 269. Thus, only seven embers failed to case a vote—a truly remarkable record.
Public Relations
1941 was a year of action, which was to be expected during Donald Finkbeiner‘s presidency.
Finkbeiner began the practice of law in Toledo in 1921 and later spent fifteen years as head of
the Legal Department of the Toledo Street Railway Company, returning to the private practice in
1939. His activity in the Ohio State Bar Association was matched only by his leadership in civic
affairs in Toledo. For many years, he was a familiar figure in the halls of the legislature and the
watering places frequented by the law-makers. No other lobbyist was more respected for his
knowledge of the workings of the General Assembly and his thorough understanding of the
subject with which he was involved.
When Finkbeiner assumed the presidency of the Association he planned a fine program and
saw that it was carried out. One of the most successful ventures was a radio program entitled,
―Liberty Under Law.‖ Station WBNS in Columbus had instituted such a series in 1940, and the
Public Relations Committee of the Association, working in concert with WBNS, developed a
presentation involving legal questions and the work of lawyers in upholding and defending the
rights and privileges of citizens. The scripts were made available to local bar associations, thus
enabling lawyers in all parts of Ohio to participate in the radio series. Roy L. Struble of
Cincinnati chaired the Public Relations Committee, and the radio program was developed by a
group which included William E. Knepper, David K. Larrimer, Homer Trantham, Edward H.
Laylin, Ernest A. Gabriel, and W. Ray Speer, all of Columbus. Twelve Ohio radio stations aired
the series, and its popularity was such that many inquiries were received form neighboring states.
Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of the project was that it produced a modest profit for the
Association.
To publicize and improve the plan, a script-writing contest was inaugurated. The contest was
open to any member in good standing of the Ohio State Bar Association, and the subject matter
had to conform to the theme of, ―Liberty Under Law.‖ The winner of the first prize of $25 was
Robert E. Lee Young of Cincinnati. Wilbur T. Blair of Youngstown and Clyde F. Berry of Akron
tied for second place, and received as prizes paid-up membership cards for 1942. The American
Bar Association accorded special recognition to the program at its Indianapolis convention.
The summary of the 1941 Spring Meeting in Columbus stated that the total registration of 637
was not unusually large. As an encouragement to join the Association the convention adopted a
constitutional amendment which allowed a new member to pay dues quarterly, beginning with
the first full quarter after his application was approved. Another amendment provided that a
member who had been in good standing for fifty years would be exempt from future payment of
dues. Still another amendment, which provoked extended debate before passage, made the
immediate past President of the Association a member of the Executive Committee. It was
adopted by a vote of 48 to 23, only to be removed in the general constitutional revision of 1946,
and then restored again in 1959.
Preparedness
A portent of the dark days ahead was heard at the Council of Delegates meeting. Although the
Pearl Harbor disaster was eight months in the future, the progress of the Axis powers in Europe
and Africa had shaken the nation into preparing for war, and the Selective Service had been
revived in the United States. To protect the members of the armed forces, Congress had passed
the Soldiers and Sailors‘ Civil Relief Act of 1940, and every lawyer who filed a lawsuit had to
look to its provisions if a serviceman or his dependents were involved. Judge Simon Ross of the
Hamilton County Court of Appeals explained the Act, and called upon his listeners to render to
all men of draft age gratuitous service in connection with their registration, and to give the same
service to men inducted into the service in any matter involving their legal rights.
A Committee on Administrative Law and Procedure, with Fred J. Milligan of Columbus as
chairman, had been established to study and report on the practice and procedure of the State
bureaus and commission. Milligan reported that a bill was pending in the General Assembly to
create an Administrative Law Commission. Within two years his committee would propose an
Ohio Administrative Procedure Act (which was eventually adopted.)
The Junior Bar Section held a luncheon meeting, with Vernon R. Burt of Cleveland, President
of the Section, presiding. The speaker was Thurman W. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General of
the United States, who, in a monumental understatement, predicted that taxes would go up. On
the subject of organized labor he said that by the use of various weapons at their command
unions had been able to have various procedures banned which would bring necessities to the
people at lower prices. He hastily added, however, that where union activity involved nothing
more than legitimate subjects of collective bargaining and enforcement by strikes, such strikes
should not be interdicted even though they might result in apparent or temporary interference
with essential defense production.
The Committee on Probate Law had been busy. The existing probate code had been enacted in
1931 and extensively revised in 1935, through the efforts of the Probate Law Committee then
chaired by Howard L. Barkdull. More work had been needed, however, and another overhaul of
the Code had been undertaken by the Committee during the past year. In all, amendments were
proposed to sixty-seven sections of the law, and the bill containing these amendments was
passed through the efforts of the Chairman of the Probate Code Committee, Howard L. Hyde,
and Committee Secretary Robert F. Maskey, President Finkbeiner, Secretary Henney and his
staff, and the Probate Judges Association.
Chairman Hyde, in his final report, suggested that the majority of the committee members
believed that the group should be reorganized. He cautioned against further trips to the
legislative well, because more extensive revision of the probate code would not then be in the
interest of the bench, the bar or the public. He suggested that a new committee, if appointed,
should concentrate on testamentary trusts, because Ohio had little statutory or case law on the
subject.
In October the Ohio State Bar Association members gathered in Toledo, the hometown of
President Finkbeiner, for their fall conclave. A distinguished panel of speakers included: Hatton
W. Summers of Texas, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Roscoe Pound, Dean
Emeritus of the Harvard Law School; and U. S. Senators Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and Robert
A. Taft of Ohio.
A new event for State Bar meetings was inaugurated at Toledo. The women lawyers of that
city had established their own club, and they scheduled a breakfast meeting and an evening
theatre party for the visiting female barristers.
Chairman Robert A. Kelb of the Membership Committee reported that 466 new members had
been added to the rolls during the year. A large measure of the credit for the success of this drive
was due to J. Robert Swartz, who had recently joined the staff, and also to J. Z. Gordon, the
Assistant Secretary.
Chester G. Wise was elected President of the Association. He was a former president of the
Akron Bar Association, and a member of the Ohio State Bar Association Executive Committee.
Other men elected to office included: J. Virgil Cory of Cleveland, Chairman of the Council of
Delegates; Judge Charles W. Montgomery of Newark, Chairman of the Judicial Section; Jerome
Taylor of Akron, President of the Junior Bar Section; and William M. Summers of Marietta,
Chairman of the Prosecuting Attorneys Section.
***
The Spring Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association was convened at the Deshler-Wallick
Hotel in Columbus on April 16, 1942. Among the speakers were Dean Arthur T. Martin of the
College of Law of The Ohio State University, and author Louis Bromfield of Mansfield. Martin
covered the subject of administrative law, which was then of particular interest. The
Administrative Law Commission, created by the 94th General Assembly, was hard at work, and
the Association‘s Administrative law Committee (headed by Fred J. Milligan of Columbus) was
working closely with the Commission. Together, they were striving to have a bill ready for the
next legislature, and from the tenor of Martin‘s remarks it would be none too soon. An
investigation had revealed that in 1940 in Ohio there were forty-six agencies administering
seventy-sic licensing acts, and issuing 187 different types of licenses for a total of over 8,000,000
licenses outstanding.
Bromfield, whose Malabar Farm in Richland County had become a showplace of Central
Ohio through scientific farming practices, described conditions in India and the problems faced
by England there. Bromfield closed by predicting (correctly, as it turned out) that at the end of
World War II the United States would find the responsibilities of the world thrust upon it.
Another speaker whose words were prophetic was John Scott of Cleveland. He described the
work of the Lawyers Reference Bureau in that city. The program was developed as a means of
delivering legal services to persons of low income, and the lawyers who participated had to agree
to charge not more than $5 per hour, and to bill for legal services on the ability of the client to
pay rather than on the lawyer‘s regular rate. More than 100 clients were served in the first
eighteen months of the program.
The Corporation Law Committee offered a novel idea when it proposed that laws be passed
providing for the indemnification of corporate directors and officers. Such a law had been
enacted in England in 1929. A New York statute on the subject had been criticized as being
vague and ambiguous, and the committee acknowledged that more study was required and that
passage of an act of this type was probably still far in the future.
The Spring Meeting in Columbus produced an interesting statistic. Wood County, with only
twenty-two lawyers at its bar, boasted that thirteen of them (60%) were in attendance. No other
local bar association could approach that figure.
The Nation at War
The first year of World War II had a profound effect upon the Ohio State Bar Association. A
July issue of the Ohio BAR listed 244 lawyers who had answered the call to the colors. Many
more were to follow, and some would not return. One of those who did return was Major John C.
Morley, who survived the death march on Bataan in the Philippines, and received the Silver Star.
The program of the Fall Meeting was dominated by speeches on war-related subjects.
Associate Justice Wiley B. Rutledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia was a guest speaker at the Junior Bar luncheon. His topic was ―What is the War Doing
to Law and Lawyers.‖ Other titles were, ―Our Military Aviation,‖ by Congressman Dow Harter
of Akron, ―Opportunities for Lawyers in the Army,‖ by Major Donfred H. Gardner of Cleveland,
―The Rubber Crisis,‖ by John F. Collyer of Akron, President of B. F. Goodrich Company and,
―Recent Decisions Under the Soldiers and Sailors‘ Civil Relief Act,‖ by Judge Thomas M.
Powers of Akron.
The Ohio Supreme Court, accommodating itself to the times, permitted law students who
entered the armed forces before graduation to take the bar examination, although their grades
were withheld until their law schools certified that they had completed the course of study. Seven
men were admitted to practice in July, 1942 under this rule.
The Fall Meeting was held in Akron, the hometown of President Chester G. Wise, Andrew S.
Iddings of Dayton was elected to the Presidency, the office his brother Daniel W. Iddings held in
1920, and they are the only brothers to occupy the highest office in the Association. J. L. W.
Henney was re-elected secretary and Treasurer. Henry G. Binns of Columbus was named
Chairman of the Council of Delegates. The Judicial Section named Judge William L. Hart as
Chairman. Paul E. Baden was elected Chairman of the Prosecuting Attorneys‘ Section. The
Junior Bar Section elected James E. Reed of Marion as Chairman. Other Section Leaders were:
Real Estate, Fredriks D. Berger, Cincinnati; Taxation, Darold I. Greek, Columbus; and
Workmen‘s Compensation, William J. Higley, Toledo.
Two constitutional amendments were adopted to eliminate the requirement of two meetings a
year. The Council of Delegates was interested in a constitutional amendment to give it greater
power in the drafting states on Association-sponsored legislation, but Chairman J. Virgil Cory of
Cleveland requested, and was granted additional time to prepare and publicize the amendment.
The Executive Committee cited a serious problem which had confronted the Association, but
it also reported a solution. The Heer Printing Company of Columbus had always printed the Ohio
BAR and the Supreme Court Reports, but the contract expired and Heer had insisted on a sharp
price increase if it were to be renewed. This apparently left the Association with three
unsatisfactory alternatives: the Ohio BAR could be discontinued; or the Ohio BAR could be
published in alternate weeks; or the dues could be raised to provide sufficient funds to meet the
331/3% increase demand by Heer. Secretary Henney came up with a fourth possibility. He
obtained a proposal from Sheldon Laning of The Law Abstract Publishing Company in Norwalk
to do the printing at the price fixed in the expiring contract. The Executive Committee accepted
the proposal, and thus began a relationship which lasted until 1958 when the Association bought
Laning‘s company.
A controversial issue (which drew opposition from some segments of the legal profession)
was the proposal of the committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Code to have the Ohio
Supreme Court assume sole jurisdiction in reinstatement cases. One example of the laxity being
shown in the trial courts in reinstatement matters came from Cuyahoga County, where the trial
court conclusively presumed that rehabilitation of the miscreant would be complete in sixty days,
in a case involving embezzlement and fraudulent concealment of a client‘s fund in no less than
seven separate transactions. The Committee filed a formal petition for adoption of the proposed
rule, supported by a brief bristling with citations, with the Supreme Court. The Ohio Division of
the National Lawyers Guild filed a brief in opposition. The Supreme Court did not adopt the rule
and assume jurisdiction over reinstatement, and the proposal had to wait for its proper season;
but it was Benjamin C. Boer, Chairman of the Committee in 1942, who sounded the call ten
years later which finally resulted in the rule‘s adoption.
Wartime Austerity
A war-restricted convention of the Ohio State Bar Association met in Columbus on Thursday,
April 15, 1943. The advance program specifically stated that there would be no ladies‘
entertainment. The topics of discussion reflected the impact of the new tax laws and the
burgeoning industrial employment brought on by the war. Nationally-known speakers who
addressed the meeting included Senator Joseph H. Ball of Minnesota, Professor Erwin H.
Griswold of Harvard Law School, and Colonel Robert R. McCormik, publisher of the Chicago
Tribune, ―The World‘s Greatest Newspaper.‖
A novel idea was presented to the Judicial Section by Judge Samuel H. Silbert of Cleveland.
During the course of a trial in his court, he had permitted the jurors to take notes in spite of the
old rule against their doing so. An objection had been registered and an appeal taken, but no
decision had been announced at the time of the Association‘s meeting. Arguing that the old rule
was based on a presumption of illiteracy, whereas jurors were not generally literate, Silbert urged
that the practice should be encouraged. The issue was sharply debated by the assembled judges.
Henry G. Binns, chairman of a subcommittee on unification of the trial courts, reported on the
status of a unification measure in the General Assembly. He also urged support of a bill
establishing a court of small claims and minor offenses, which would, incidentally, eliminate
justices of the peace altogether, and severely limit the jurisdiction of majors‘ courts. This
proposal caused some embarrassment to this writer, who at the time was a member of the Ohio
House Judiciary Committee. After Binns‘ presentation before the Committee the opponents were
given a hearing, and the only one—but a very vocal one—to appear in opposition was former
State Senator William J. Zoul of Cleveland. He was known locally as the ―marrying justice‖—
his justice of the peace court was located adjacent to the Cuyahoga County Court House, and
thus was convenient for couples who had just obtained their marriage licenses and were not
disposed to wait. Zoul had been along-time friend of my father (who was the Mayor of Shaker
Heights), and as Zoul was pressing his arguments against the bill he noticed the writer and
blurted out, ―why, Billy Van Aken, I didn‘t know you were in the legislature. You can‘t vote for
this bill—it would put your father out of business.‖ The bill was not reported out by the Judiciary
Committee—but not for that reason.
Happily, other Association-sponsored bills met with more success. The Uniform Fiduciaries
Act was passed, as were war-related measures providing for substitute fiduciaries in certain
cases, and validating acts done pursuant to powers of attorney until the holder had actual notice
of the death or disability of the grantor of the power. The most important bill to pass, however,
was the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Law Committee of the State Bar,
under the chairmanship of Robert H. Hoffman, cooperated closely with the Administrative Law
Commission to perfect this bill and secure its passage.
The ―Fourth Estate Says‖ column of the Ohio BAR reported that Captain Paul W. Brown of
Youngstown was a prisoner of war in Italy. He was awarded a Silver Star for gallantry in action,
and the presentation was made to his wife, who was a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps.
When the war ended, Brown pursued a legal career which led him to the Ohio Supreme Court
bench and a time as Attorney General.
In the belief that the Ohio State Bar Association provided an important public service that was
at least indirectly beneficial to the war effort, it was determined to hold the Annual Meeting in
Columbus in November, even through the government urged curtailment of such meetings.
The Executive Committee reported that it had held nine meetings in Columbus and one at the
farm of President Andrew Iddings near Dayton. It had elected President Iddings and former
President Donald A. Finkbeiner of Toledo as the Ohio State Bar Association representatives to
the American Bar Association House of Delegates. The question of reinstatement of members
whose dues were delinquent was resolved by endorsing a constitutional amendment providing
that no member would be reinstated unless the full amount of his delinquent dues were paid up.
As an accommodation to the publisher of the Ohio BAR, the Committee inaugurated the custom
of suspending publication for two weeks in August to allow for employee vacations. The
Committee hired Leo P. Enright as Assistant Secretary, to replace J. Z. Gordon who had resigned
to become Executive Secretary of the Ohio Funeral Directors‘ Association.
The Annual Meeting was extended to three days, thus establishing a pattern which prevailed
for more than a quarter of a century. A full schedule faced the delegates, and war-connected
matters dominated the program. ―A Lawyer Views Rent Control From Within and Without,‖
―Renegotiation of War Contracts,‖ ―Post-War Planning by American Business,‖ and, ―I Had to
Live and Practice Law under Hitler,‖ were some of the subjects covered by an impressive array
of speakers.
The constitutional amendment relative to payment of delinquent dues as a condition precedent
to reinstatement was approved. An amendment dealing with the powers of the Council of
Delegates was rejected by the members of the Association, primarily because of a clear and
forceful speech by Simeon M. Johnson, who had joined the Association in 1892, and had been its
President in 1912. Through the years he had been one of the Association‘s hardest-working and
most devoted members.
Studies in Organization
One of the most important steps taken in the administration of President Waymon B.
McLeskey was the appointment of a committee to review the entire organization of the Ohio
State Bar Association, the work of which would have a more profound effect upon the operation
of the Ohio State Bar Association than any other since 1880. It was an able and experienced
group under the chairmanship of a former President of the Association, Robert Guinther of
Akron, and its members were Bert H. Long of Cincinnati, James M. Hengst of Columbus, Judge
Walter S. Jackson of Lima, Robert H. Noll of Marietta, Andrew S. Mitchell of Newark, Arthur
R. Cline of Toledo, Harold B. Doyle of Youngstown, Ben C. Boer of Cleveland, Richard F.
Stevens of Elyria, Thomas J. Jones of Bridgeport, and Philip C. Ebeling of Dayton. Suggestions
were solicited from the members of the Association for ways and means of improving the
effectiveness of the Association.
It was going to be an active year for the Association in many respects: three seats on the Ohio
Supreme Court were to be filled at the fall election; the 95th Ohio General Assembly had
proposed two constitutional amendments dealing with the judicial article; and a national
conference on traffic laws was scheduled for Columbus. President McLeskey was the right man
at the right time for the Ohio State Bar Association. When he had become president of the
Columbus Bar Association it was in the doldrums, but with characteristic drive and energy he
restored the group to its former position of leadership and influence in the capital city. For his
efforts, he was rewarded with an unprecedented second term.
McLeskey gave particular attention to the problem of traffic law enforcement. He appointed a
new Committee on Traffic Law Enforcement and Traffic Safety, chaired by Charles Sachs of
Akron. AT least three members were appointed from each appellate district, so as to maintain
close liaison with local bar associations. An Ohio Traffic Court Conference was held at the Neil
House in Columbus, and President McLeskey was one of the principal speakers. He called for an
overhaul of the traffic court system and pledged the full cooperation of the Ohio State Bar
Association to secure the enactment of appropriate legislation.
The Spring Meeting of the Association was held in Columbus in May, 1944. Among the
speakers on the program were United States District Judge Robert N. Wilkin of New
Philadelphia, Judge Simon Ross of Cincinnati, C. Roth Crabbe of Columbus, Judge Thomas
Powers of Akron, Fred R. Place of Columbus, C. R. Beirne of Cincinnati, and Raymond Moley
of New York City. Moley, an early advocate of the New Deal in Washington, chose as his topic,
―Party vs. Personal Government.‖ He made the point that executive leadership in the Presidency
has a seductive quality that makes its dangers difficult to comprehend. The two-party system was
inevitable under our Constitution, according to Moley, and he contended that without the twoparty system the republic would be destroyed. He then described the difficulties faced by the
Democratic Party resulting from the dominance of its leader, incumbent President Franklin d.
Roosevelt, by saying that the principle of executive leadership had degenerated into the actuality
of party dictatorship. Moley suggested that one of the factors in the disintegration of an effective
two-party system was the news media. Clearly, he had abandoned his early New Deal advocacy.
In June came law school graduations and the bar examination. The statistics offer a
remarkable commentary on the effect of the war. Only fourteen women and fifty men took the
June, 1944 bar examination, compared to 400 before the war.
Judicial Elections and Court Organization
As a service to the public in the fall election, the Association circulated a questionnaire to the
candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court, and answers were returned by five of the six candidates.
The only one to demur was Charles B. Hubbell of Cleveland, a perennial office seeker, who
explained that he would not deign to answer the questionnaire because he was submitting his
candidacy to all of the people, not just the lawyers. The answers of all candidates were published
in the Ohio BAR and a poll of the lawyers was taken. The three incumbents—Chief Justice Carl
V. Wegandt, Edward S. Matthias and William L. Hart—won bar endorsement handily, and the
verdict of the bar was confirmed by the people in the general election in November.
The people also agreed with the two constitutional amendments to the judicial article which
had been proposed by the Association and the Judicial Council. The amendment to Article IV of
the Ohio Constitution Section 2, authorized the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or, in his
absence, the senior judge, to designate a judge of the court of appeals to fill a temporary vacancy
on the Supreme Court. Thus, there would no longer be any affirmances by virtue of a tie vote.
The amendment to Section 6 of Article IV was much broader, and dealt with procedural matters,
the power of the legislature to set qualifications for judges, and the authority of the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court to assign appellate judges to sit in other districts.
Miscellany
The members of the Ohio State Bar Association returned to Columbus for their Annual
meeting in November. In addition to the usual bread-and-butter subjects, the delegates were
treated to an address by Congressman Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, who criticized the
constitutional provision for the electoral college and predicted dire consequences for the country
unless an amendment were adopted to eliminate this allegedly defective mechanism for selecting
a president.
Items of interest gleaned from the report of the convention include: 875 members were
serving in the armed forces, and their dues were remitted; 331 new members joined the
Association in 1943-1944, but 317 names were dropped, leaving a net gain of fourteen; the total
membership stood at 4,960; and awards were presented by representatives of the War
Department and Navy Department to Andrew J. White, Jr., Chairman of the Association‘s
Committee on the War Effort, in recognition of the work of the Association and its members in
providing legal assistance to servicemen.
The final issue of the Ohio BAR for 1944 carried the announcement that Governor John W.
Bricker had formed a new law firm, to be known as Bricker, Marburger, Evatt and Barton. Two
of these men, William S. Evatt and Robert L. Barton, had served with the Governor in the State
House, the former as Tax Commissioner, and the latter as Executive Secretary.
“Winning the Peace”
World War II dominated events in 1945, as the combined power of the Allied forces pushed
the enemy toward the inevitable Götterdamerung. The effect of the war was evident in the
deliberations of the Ohio State Bar Association, and when President Jay P. Taggart of Cleveland
summoned the bar leaders to Columbus to outline plans for the coming year, the Association‘s
part in the war effort was the most frequently mentioned topic.
Andrew J. White, Jr. of Columbus was chairman of the Committee on the War Effort, and
because of the volume of work involved he asked that additional members be appointed to his
committee. The committee‘s work consisted mainly of rendering legal assistance to service men,
and with Lockbourne Air Base and Fort Hayes at Columbus, Wright-Patterson Field at Dayton,
Camp Perry at Port Clinton, and the arsenal at Ravenna, Ohio had its share of military
installations. The need of military personnel for legal services was great, and many lawyers gave
generously of their time and talent.
The Committee on Legal Education, chaired by James E. Olds of Akron, was planning to
establish refresher courses for returning servicemen. This would be a large and important task,
since no less than 877 Association members were in the armed forces. To further accommodate
and assist returning lawyer-veterans, a summary of the important changes in Ohio statutory and
case law since Pearl Harbor was prepared by a panel of experts: Everett L. Foote of Akron; Jay
P. Taggart of Cleveland; Horace S. Kerr of Columbus; Carl L. Meier of Cincinnati; Merritt A.
Vickery of Cleveland; J. L. W. Henney of Columbus; Henry G. Binns of Columbus; Judge
William C. Wiseman of Dayton; Dean Arthur T. Martin of Columbus; Wilbur E. Benoy of
Columbus; Judge Thomas M. Powers of Akron; and Harold F. Adams of Columbus.
Wartime travel restrictions forced the cancellation of the Association‘s Spring Meeting. The
Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion had requested that all conventions or meetings
involving travel by more than fifty persons be eliminated for the duration of the war, in order to
have hotel and train accommodations available for persons directly involved in the war effort.
The Ohio BAR reported other items related to the war: Judge Clarence F. Denning, of the
Cincinnati Municipal Court, and Attorney Leonard Garver of Cincinnati, were working nights in
war plants; Captain Donald E. Smith of Mansfield was awarded the Bronze Star; Staff Sergeant
Edward C. Lovett, Jr. of Cincinnati was cited for heroism on D-Day; Ensign William H. Janes
was granted a medical discharge and returned to his position as Judge of the Gallipolis Municipal
Court; Colonel H. A. Toulmin, Jr. of Dayton was awarded the Legion of Merit; Kyle Brooks of
Cincinnati was released from the Marine Corps to return to his position as parliamentarian of the
Ohio House of Representatives; and, finally, the Akron Bar Association announced that its Post-
War Rehabilitation Committee was planning a refresher course for veterans, and was requesting
that they be furnished an office with secretarial and telephone service, and that the judges reserve
for veterans all discretionary appointments as receivers, guardians and administrators.
The legislature was in session and the Association staff busied itself with lobbying activities.
The major piece of Association-sponsored legislation was a bill to establish a Bureau of Code
Revision. It provided for a commission of nine members—three from each house of the General
Assembly, and three members of the bar appointed by the Governor. Its function would be to
conduct a continuing study for the purpose of codifying and revising the statutes of Ohio. The
bill passed and was signed by the Governor.
With the capitulation of Germany and Japan various wartime restrictions were being eased,
and the Association therefore scheduled a meeting in Cleveland for November 29 and 30. The
convention met in the Statler Hotel, and the chief item of business was consideration of
amendments to the Association Constitution. These amendments were calculated to make the
Association a more representative group, and to provide for greater contact between the members
and the leadership. They also redistricted the state for Association purposes, and made July 1 the
day on which each new administration was to take over. The amendments were all adopted, and
by virtue of the one extending the term of officers to July 1, Jay P. Taggart gained the distinction
of serving longer as President than any one since Judge Rufus P. Ranney, the first President.
Speakers for the Cleveland meeting included U. S. District Judge Robert N. Wilkin of
Cleveland, John S. Knight of Akron, the publisher of the Akron Beacon Journal, and Carl D.
Friebolin of Cleveland, Referee in Bankruptcy.
President Taggart addressed a general luncheon sponsored by the Junior Bar Section, stating
his belief that the practice of a presidential address should be revived. He proceeded to deliver a
scholarly talk in the classical mold of his predecessors. Referring to the unauthorized practice of
law, he laid much of the blame squarely on the doorstep of the lawyers, saying, ―… We have not
taken advantage of our opportunities, have not fitted ourselves to do promptly, efficiently and
ably the work which members of these other callings or professions are doing for the public in
the integrity and trustworthiness of a few members of our profession.‖
Judge Friebolin, in his address, expressed a thought which he repeated many times during his
career: ―I would like to see our larger law offices give some of their young men leaves of
absence for a year or two to serve in the legislature or city council. That would be a practical
demonstration of highminded citizenship which would reflect credit on them. It would be of
benefit to the community, it would be a broadening influence to the man himself and make him a
better lawyer.‖
***
In the 1920 presidential campaign Warren G. Harding had coined the phrase, ―back to
normalcy,‖ and that statement fairly (if ungrammatically) describes 1946 in the annals of the
Ohio State Bar Association. Every issue of Ohio BAR for that year was replete with
announcements of the return to the practice of law of men who had served their country. To aid
the returning veterans, Dean Merton L. Ferson of the University of Cincinnati College of Law
announced a twenty-one day refresher course. An impressive array of speakers conducted the
program, which included not only a review of fundamental principles but also an explanation of
recent changes in the law. Similar courses were offered at Ohio State University College of Law
and at Toledo University.
The lawbook publishers also offered their help to the returning lawyers. Banks-Baldwin Law
Publishing Company advertised a series of publications available at a servicemen‘s discount and,
as a bonus, any veteran placing an order would receive a free law dictionary.
The big new in the Ohio State Bar Association in 1946 was the rewriting of the Constitution.
A Committee on Ohio State Bar Reorganization had been appointed in 1944 with three
objectives: to increase the interest of Ohio lawyers in the Association‘s work; to achieve closer
coordination between the state and local bar associations; and to find greater opportunities for
members to participate in the government of the Association. The Committee had worked
diligently, and the result was a complete revision of the basic document of the organization, the
first since the original draft was adopted in 1880. Articles I and II, the name and object clauses,
were untouched, but otherwise the document was new from top to bottom. The principal changes
were: the abandonment of the appellate district as a basis of representation, and the substitution
of newly drawn State Bar districts; provision for a single annual meeting; strengthening of the
Council of Delegates; authorizing referenda on issues involving Association policy; a
requirement for an annual address by the President; and a prohibition against consecutive terms
on the Executive Committee.
The Convention program included a speech by Donald R. Richberg, an early New Dealer,
who voiced the nation‘s growing unrest with the monopoly of organized labor. He cited Supreme
Court decisions which, while recognizing that corporations were subject to the penalties of the
Sherman Act if they combined to restrain trade, held that if labor unions made agreements
among themselves and with a number of the corporations whereby certain products could not be
brought into a city unless those products were produced by union labor, that would not be a
violation of the Sherman Act. The fact that total restraint of trade could occur, with disastrous
economic results, was immaterial. Richberg said, ―This judicial grant of practically unrestricted
monopoly powers to labor organizations is one of the most unfortunate developments of recent
labor law.‖ He went on to say that the people must look to the Congress for a new law to prevent
the destruction of a competitive economy. His plea became part of a call which resulted in the
election in 1946 of a Republican-controlled Congress, dominated intellectually by a member of
the Ohio State Bar Association and Ohio‘s senior senator, Robert a. Taft. He and his fellow
legislator gave the nation the Taft-Hartley Act, which restored some balance to labor relations.
A large complement of Association committees presented reports to the May meeting. The
Committee on Legal Biography gave one of its last reports, sadly noting the passing of a number
of past leaders of the bar of Ohio, including: Edward Kibler of Newark, the Association‘s
President in 1905; Charles Buss of Cleveland, Secretary from 1912 to 1916; Edward J. Marshall
of Toledo, the father of the Ohio corporation code; and Dean Arthur T. Martin of the College of
Law of The Ohio State University. The list of decedents also contained the arresting name of
Brooklyn B. Bridge of Columbus.
A new committee to assist returning veterans had been formed. Known as the legal Services
Committee, it contacted 112 local bar associations throughout Ohio and urged them to set up
programs to aid servicemen in their return to civilian life. A survey of selected counties revealed
that 6,250 servicemen received legal assistance from local bar associations in Cuyahoga,
Franklin, Hamilton, Mahoning and Montgomery counties.
The Ohio State Bar Association offered another service for returning lawyers, irrespective of
whether they were members of the Association. The Association of American Law Schools and
the Practicing Law Institute had jointly prepared a monograph on Significant Developments in
the law during the war years, and the availability of this monograph was publicized in the Ohio
BAR along with the Association‘s own lawyer-veteran pamphlet.
The Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee reluctantly admitted defeat in its
efforts to secure the passage of a unified trial court proposal. It asked to be relieved of further
responsibility for the measure, and the request was granted. Undaunted, however, by the reverse
on unified courts, the committee came up with a proposal on a different subject. A questionnaire
had been circulated to all judges of courts of record in Ohio to gather information on judicial
retirement benefits, and the replies were being subjected to an actuarial analysis on completion
of which the committee planned to draft an appropriate bill. As a postscript, the finished bill was
presented to the General Assembly in 1947, and met with strong opposition. At a hearing in the
House Judicial Committee a spokesman for the Cleveland Bar Association spoke in favor of the
bill. He was obviously out-of-tune with legislative reality—when asked by a committee member
whether a compromise in the amount of retirement benefits in order to secure passage would be
acceptable, he replied, ―We want all or nothing.‖ The legislature chose nothing, as being the
cheaper alternative.
The Association elections, which took place at the May meeting, saw Howard F. Guthery of
Marion chosen to succeed Jay P. Taggart as President as President. It was the last election under
the old Constitution. The members of the last Executive Committee to be chosen pursuant to that
document were: Charles E. Weber of Cincinnati; Philip C. Ebeling of Dayton; H. Alfred
Donithen of Marion; Charles D. Fogle of Marietta; William L. Robinson of Mt. Vernon; Joseph
D. Stecher of Toledo; William A. Mason of Youngstown; Benjamin C. Boer of Cleveland;
Thomas M. Powers of Akron; and Jay P. Taggart of Cleveland, ex officio.
In 1946 two young men destined for prominence in the state bar became members of the
Association. One of them, Erle Bridgewater of Athens, came with impressive credentials. His
grade of 90.4% on the June bar examination was the highest among the 125 successful
applicants. Bridgewater was the President of the Ohio State Bar Association in 163. The other,
Jamille Jamra of Toledo, was the Association‘s President in 1976-77.
The Reorganized Association
The Association year 1946 – 1947 was a period of adjustment. The comprehensive revision in
the previous year of the Association‘s Constitution resulted in a new geographical division of the
state for Association purposes. Fifteen districts were created, and each was entitled to one
member on the Executive Committee and one or more members on the Council of Delegates,
based on the lawyer population of the district.
The members of the Executive Committee charged with guiding the Association in the
Transitional period were: Charles E. Weber of Cincinnati; Philip C. Ebeling of Dayton; Marcus
C. Downing of Findlay; Joseph D. Stecher of Toledo; J. Thomas Guernsey of Lima; Edward K.
Campbell of Bellefontaine; Waymon B. McLeskey of Columbus; Aronhold C. Schapiro of
Portsmouth; William L. Robinson of Mt. Vernon; Don W. Myers of Lorain; Judge Thomas M.
Powers of Akron; Ben C. Boer of Cleveland; William A. Mason of Youngstown; Albert B.
Arbaugh of Canton; and Charles D. Fogle of Marietta. The high caliber of these men, and their
dedication to the work of the Ohio State Bar Association, are demonstrated by the fact that of the
fifteen of them, five attained the Presidency of the Association.
Luncheons in honor of the successful applicants for admission to the bar were now an
institution, and were co-sponsored by the Junior Bar Section of the Ohio State Bar Association
and the local bar associations. Luncheons were held in Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland
following the induction ceremony. Speeches were delivered by representatives of the Supreme
Court and the state and local bar associations, and the occasion provided an excellent opportunity
to secure new members for the organized bar.
With the arrival of 1947 another legislative session convened and the various committees of
the Association had ground out a goodly number of measures for introduction in the General
Assembly. Leo P. Enright was charged with the major share of the work in guiding the bills
through the legislature, but re received the usual good assistance of J. L. W. Henney. The
legislative road was somewhat smoother because Roscoe Walcutt of Columbus, who served as
the reporter for Association meetings, was now the acting majority leader in the Senate. He
handled most of the Association-endorsed bills with great success—of twelve bills backed by the
Association six became law, which is as good a batting average in the legislature as it is in
baseball.
The adoption of a new Constitution signaled a new era for the Ohio State Bar Association.
The enlarged and strengthened Council of Delegates held its first meeting May 15, 1947 at the
Deshler-Wallick Hotel in Columbus. It was called a, ―preliminary meeting,‖ and was chaired by
the President of the Association, Howard F. Guthery. Several notices in the Ohio BAR solicited
the filing of petitions by lawyers desiring to serve on the Council, and the response was so good
that elections were necessary in District 1 (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren Counties)
and District 12 (Cuyahoga County). Gerritt J. Fredriks of Cincinnati and Harry S. Wonnell of
Hamilton were elected in District 1, and J. Virgil Cory, H. Walter Stewart, Jay P. Taggart and
William R. Van Aken, all of Cleveland, were elected in District 12. The other members of the
original Council chosen under the new Constitution were: E. R. Heisel of Cincinnati; Frank H.
Marshall of Sidney; Harley D. Enyeart of Troy; Edward W. Kuns of Paulding; Fred A. Smith of
Toledo; Judge William A. Hunt of Port Clinton; Bernard C. Moloney of Marion; Edward C.
Thompson of Bellefontaine; Frank J. Collopy and Joseph M. Harter of Columbus; James W.
Blair of Delaware; Kenneth M. Robbins of Circleville; Ralph J. Marshall of Zanesville; J. J.
Smythe of Amherst; Jacob Levin of Lorain; William M. Giffen and Mark F. McChesney of
Akron; Cary R. Alburn, Roger C. Burtt, Jack L. Griffith and J. Hall Kellogg, of Cleveland;
William A. Mason of Youngstown; Robert G. Day of Warren; Clyde Chalfant of Steubenville;
and William V. Frazier, Jr. of Martins Ferry.
Ben C. Boer, who had been a member of the State Bar Organization Committee, addressed the
assembled Delegates, described the organization of the Council and its duties, and urged them to
devote their best efforts to the work of the Council. President-Elect Joseph D. Stecher of Toledo
called the attention of the Delegates to the fact that one of their duties was to submit names of
prospective Association committee members to their Executive Committeeman. Philip C.
Ebeling of Dayton, the Vice-President-Elect, expressed his belief that the new organization
would work and become an effective agency of the Association. He suggested that the incoming
President appoint a committee to develop rules for the government of the Council. President
Guthery closed the meeting with the announcement of a plan for a series of Associationsponsored practicing law institutes, to be held in concert with the local bar associations of the
state.
The banquet of the abbreviated convention took place on the first night of the meting. It had
all of the earmarks of a political meeting—the speakers‘ table was graced by Supreme Court
Judges Edward C. Turner of Columbus, Edward S. Matthias of Van Wert, Charles B.
Zimmerman of Springfield, James G. Stewart of Cincinnati and Robert M. Sohngen of Hamilton,
Governor Thomas J. Herbert of Cleveland, Lieutenant Governor Paul M. Herbert of Columbus,
and House Speaker C. William O‘Neill of Marietta. With such an assemblage it was fitting that
the speaker of the evening should be a government figure—Hugh Green, Speaker of the Illinois
House of Representatives. He startled his audience by a feat of memory—he brought greetings
from his fellow members of the Illinois Legislature, and called off the names of each of them
without reference to a single note.
The Junior Bar Section sponsored a luncheon meeting on Friday, where President Arthur M.
Sebastian introduced the speaker, Chief Justice Bolitha J. Laws of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. The Chief Justice urged that judges mingle with lawyers and
laymen in order that each might visualize and understand the problems of the others. In this way,
he felt, lawyers and judges could win the confidence of the public, and together could build the
great structure of justice. The new officers of the Section elected at the meeting were Loren E.
Souers, Jr., of Canton, President, and Samuel I. Krugliak, also of Canton, Secretary.
Local Bar Activities
An accent on youth continued with the ascendancy of Philip C. Ebeling of Dayton to the
Association‘s highest office. He was a thinker, a mover, and a shaker. The first activity of his
administration was the creation of a Local Bar Activities Committee. From time immemorial, the
complaint had been heard that the State Bar does not reach the local bar associations of Ohio and
the Committee proposed to issue a bulletin describing programs carried on by local bar
associations and to award prizes for outstanding projects. William E. Knepper was named as
Chairman, and committeemen included Harry F. Pattie, Secretary of the Cleveland Bar
Association, and two future presidents of the Ohio State Bar Association, Fred A. Smith of
Toledo and Allan Be. Diefenbach of Akron.
A New Face on the Staff
The announcement of the results of the June bar examination reflected the continuing growth
of interest in the law as a profession, fueled in part by the financial aid available to veterans
through the GI Bill. Two hundred eighty four applicants were successful, among whom was
Joseph Benjamin Miller, Jr., of Wapakoneta, who would shortly join the staff of the Ohio State
Bar Association for his life‘s work. Of him it was often truly been said that he has forgotten
more about bar association work than most other bar executives ever knew.
Committee Work
A long step toward an effective continuing legal education program was taken when President
Ebeling announced that the Ohio State Bar Association had joined forces with the Ohio
Practicing Law Institute, the American Law Institute, and the American Bar Association, to
present a series of lectures on Federal Taxation, Labor Law, Trial Technique, Probate Law, and
other subjects of current interest.
Another project instituted by President Ebeling, and one that has stood the test of time, was
the plan to hold group committee meetings as a means of promoting better communications and
coordination among committees. Fifteen committees gathered at the Deshler-Wallick Hotel in
September, and individual committee meetings were held on Friday evening and Saturday
morning. A luncheon followed, during which each chairman gave a brief description of the plans
and accomplishments of his committee.
The Council of Delegates met in Columbus in November, 1948, and it was a double feature—
William E. Knepper, Chairman of the Local Bar Activities Committee, called a meeting of local
bar executives at the same time. A five-point program was arranged, featuring such topics as law
institutes, legal aid, local bar association programs, preserving the practice of law, and the
Association‘s place in judicial campaigns.
Sovereign Immunity
The Council of Delegates met with forty-seven of the fifty-two members present. A lively
debate followed the presentation by Paul C. Weick of Akron of a Judicial Administration and
Legal Reform Committee recommendation to sponsor bills permitting suits against the State.
Constitutional authorization existed for such actions but, apart from a minor success by the
Association in 1933 in gaining legislative approval for suits against the Ohio Highway
Department, nothing had been accomplished. The new proposal was approved in principal by the
Council, and referred back for redrafting to cover some objections which had been raised. The
Judicial Administration and Legal Reform Committee also proposed a bill to allow suits against
political subdivisions, for damages arising out of the operation of motor vehicles. This
recommendation was approved. The disintegration of the principle of sovereign immunity had
begun in Ohio.
Further Reorganization
The Executive Committee also had a busy time at the November meeting. Sections had been
multiplying until there were now seven of them, and their meetings often conflicted with general
sessions of the Association during the conventions. By a resolution effective July 1, 1949, all
sections except Judicial, Prosecuting Attorneys, and Junior Bar were abolished. The existing
Workmen‘s Compensation, Taxation, Insurance Law, and Real Estate Sections would become
Association Committees.
The rules for the conduct of meetings had not been thoroughly updated since the original ByLaws were adopted in 1881. Therefore, the Executive Committee adopted a resolution
establishing specific rules for: selecting a chairman pro tempore in the absence of the President
and Vice President; nominating and electing officers; limits on speeches during meetings; setting
the order of business; and designating Robert‟s Rules of Order as the parliamentary guide.
The Executive Committee meeting also announced another benefit for the members of the
State Bar. Henceforth, the Ohio Law Abstract advance sheets would be included in the Ohio BAR
at no extra cost.
Bread-and-Butter Work
Action was evident in other areas, too. A sub-committee was working on a plan for an
accident and health insurance policy for the membership. It was clear that President Ebeling was
making things happen.
District meetings were becoming an integral part of the continuing program of the Ohio State
Bar Association for its members. The meeting held at Warren in November, 1948, and chaired
by C. Kenneth Clark of Youngstown, was an excellent example of a combination of bread-andbutter topics and current events. John W. Bebout of Toledo outlined proposed changes in the
probate code. Judge Paul W. Alexander, of the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court, lectured
on family law and divorce. He stated that in 1946 more than 5,000,000 persons in the United
States were affected by divorce. The judge then offered some proposals which seemed radical at
the time, but many of them have since become law. Among his suggestions were the abolition of
the defenses of recrimination and condonation, the repeal of the statutory grounds for divorce,
and the creation of a family court to handle all justiciable domestic problems.
The final speaker on the Warren program was H. Austin Hauxhurst, a former president of the
Cleveland Bar Association and a member of the International Prosecution Section for the Allied
Powers, which prosecuted the war criminals. Hauxhurst pointed out that the concept of punishing
war criminals was not new, recalling that Napoleon was imprisoned without trial and exiled, and
that Kaiser Wilhelm was charged under the Versailles Treaty in 1919 with certain high crimes
but was not tried because the Netherlands refused to extradite him. Under the Geneva Protocol of
1924, the League of Nations agreement of 1927, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, instituting
a war of aggression was made a crime. Thus, Hauxhurst said that there was a clear legal basis for
the trials.
A vigorous membership drive was under way. By the time of the January, 1950 Executive
Committee meeting, Vice President James M. Hengst of Columbus could report that 445 new
members had been admitted to the Association. The leading producer in this campaign was
Robert L. Baker of Cleveland.
Lobbying
The legislature convened in January, and some changes had taken place. The election of the
previous fall will long be remembered as the one in which Thomas E. Dewey snatched defeat
from the jaws of victory. Democrats controlled the State House and organized both houses of the
General Assembly. The State Bar committees had prepared eleven bills for introduction in the
legislature, but with new leadership in the General Assembly new contacts had to be made if the
bills were to move. To do this the Association tapped Robert H. Hoffman, a respected Columbus
lawyer and former State Senator, who joined the Association staff and immediately set to work
to line up sponsors for Association bills and get committee hearings scheduled. The session
dragged on into the late summer, but when adjournment finally came it was clear that Hoffman
had done his work well. Of eleven Association bills, six were passed and signed into law by the
Governor. Among the bills enacted were the uniform partnership act, the uniform foreign
depositions act, and certain amendments to the probate and corporation codes,
The group committee meetings which had been so successful in the fall were repeated in
March with more than 100 members present. The Association hosted a luncheon for them on
Saturday, March 26, and a custom which was to continue for many years was thus firmly
established. It afforded great strength to the Association by having committees with able,
working members who met regularly.
The Growing Association
May brought the highlight of the year for the Ohio State Bar Association. The annual
Convention met in the Biltmore Hotel in President Ebeling‘s home town of Dayton, and Ebeling,
with the able assistance of Harry S. Winer, the General Convention Chairman, had the meeting
well-organized. Five General Institute sessions were held during which experts on real estate
law, personal injury, probate law, trial practice, and taxation expounded on the latest
developments in those fields. A new event, the Local Bar Association Conference, was organized
and presented by William E. Knepper of Columbus, chairman of the Local Bar Activities
Committee. It was so well received that it became a feature of Association conventions for the
next quarter-century.
In his annual address President Ebeling could report great progress for the Association. In ten
months from July 1, 1948 to May 1, 1949, 949 new members had been recruited to bring the
total membership to just over 6,000 (this accomplishment was achieved under the direction of
Vice-President James M. Hengst). Distrct meetings had been held in thirteen of the fifteen State
Bar Districts, with 1,800 lawyers and 400 wives in attendance. The office staff of the Association
now boasted four members. Dues had been raised from $8 to $12 per year, and the financial
picture was bright. Income exceeded expenses by more than $14,000.
Looking to the future, Ebeling suggested a voluntary contribution of $3 by each lawyer, to
finance two additional staff members who would investigate and prosecute the unauthorized
practice of law. He also pointed out that there were 3,000 applicants for admission to the Ohio
bar registered in the law schools, and this, he believed, was a matter of concern. He proposed a
legal intern program before admission to practice, and urged the law schools to increase the
standards of scholarship. Another solution to the problem of potential overcrowding of the
profession offered by the President was to reach middle-income persons, most of whom had
never consulted a lawyer, with bar-sponsored neighborhood law offices, lawyer reference
bureaus, institutional advertising, and publicity on fees. Prophetically, Ebeling said, ―… unless
the bar intelligently meets the problem, it will be harassed with an ever-increasing demand for
socialization of its activities.‖
Elections were the final event of the convention. James M. Hengst was elected President,
without opposition, but a contest developed for the Vice Presidency. It was a lively affair, with
political signs, music and songs boosting the two candidates, Paul C. Weick of Akron and
Chester R. Shook. Weick was the winner.
More out-of-town lawyers attended the 1949 Dayton meeting than any other meeting in the
Association‘s history. Nearly 300 wives attended and were royally entertained by the Host
Committee. This, too, set a precedent for bar conventions, for since that time the meetings have
been a source of great camaraderie among the lawyers and their wives from all parts of Ohio.
***
The 1949-1950 change-over meeting, when James M. Hengst assumed the Presidency of the
Association, took place at the Deshler-Wallick Hotel in Columbus. The new Executive
Committee included: Harry S. Wonnell of Hamilton; Harry S. Winer of Dayton; Ray D. Avery of
Bowling Green; William H. Black, Jr. of Toledo; Harold J. Meredith of Lima; John C. Durfey of
Springfield; Joseph M. Harter of Columbus; Aronhold C. Schapiro of Portsmouth; Harold E.
Huntof Coshocton; A. H. West of Elyria; Ben C. Boer of Cleveland; C. Kenneth Clark of
Youngstown; James Olds of Akron; Frank T. Bow of Canton; and Charles D. Fogle of Marietta.
Five of these men attained the Presidency of the Association, and one, Frank T. Bow, became a
Congressman.
When J. L. W. Henney instituted the Ohio BAR, he also began what would become one of its
most interesting features, ―The Fourth Estate Says,‖ a mélange of necrology, new office
openings, speeches, social events, local bar elections, and legal high jinks. Frequently, there may
be found serious writings expressing sound philosophy. One such item was a quotation from a
tribute written by Nathaniel R. Howard, Editor of the Cleveland News, on the occasion of the
death of an active member of the Ohio State Bar Association, Judge Dan B. Cull. Howard
recalled an interview that he had with Cull in which the jurist said, ―It is a fine thing to be a
judge, but no one knows unless he has been a judge, the overpowering strain it is on the heart
and the mind. Perhaps there isn‘t a fit way of compensating a man for that kind of service. But,
unless our judges are willing to give all their hearts and all their minds to the application of the
laws on which the whole civilization stands, they are not fit to be judges and our structure of law
will eventually fall.‖ Howard added, ―I have known other high-minded judges and lawyers, but I
have never heard a more idealistic statement of their function and its demands on them.‖
The growth of the Ohio State Bar Association was clearly evident when the group committee
meetings were held in Columbus in September. Twenty-four committees were actively
functioning, and the changing life in the United States, brought about largely by World War II,
reflected itself in the new committees which had been created. The skyrocketing divorce rate
gave rise to the Domestic Relations Committee. Our international involvement and the resulting
trade relations with all the world dictated the need for an International Relations committee.
Several years previously, Judge Thomas M. Powers of the Akron Municipal Court had referred
to the fact that prior to World War II the number killed in six major wars was about 245,000,
whereas in the fifteen years preceding World War II nearly 500,000 people had been killed in
automobile accidents. This slaughter on the highways naturally gave rise to a great mass of
litigation, and to aid both plaintiff and defense lawyers, the Association established a Negligence
Law Committee. Moreover, the increasing case load was clogging dockets more and more, and
continuing concern with the inability of the Ohio court system to meet the challenge of the postwar era gave rise to the Ohio Judicial System Committee.
When the American Bar Association met in St. Louis in September, it singled out the Ohio
State Bar Association for an Award of Merit based on its accomplishments during the Presidency
of Philip C. Ebeling. Eight state associations, each having more than 2,000 members, competed
for the award, but the Ohio State Bar Association was selected because of the novelty of its
ideas, the wide scope of its activities, and the successful execution of its undertakings.
Indirect Judicial Selection
The Association became involved in the contest over the choice of a new federal judge in
Cleveland to replace Judge Robert N. Wilkin (who had retired because of ill health). Responding
to a request by H. Austin Hauxhurst of Cleveland, who was Vice Chairman of the American Bar
Association Special Committee on the Judiciary, President Hengst named a committee under the
chairmanship of Alfred A. Benesch of Cleveland to screen candidates and make
recommendations for a successor to Judge Wilkin.
The appointment became a matter of great concern for bar associations and newspapers. The
Akron Beacon Journal was particularly blunt in discussing the subject. In an editorial entitled,
―A Judge or a Hack,‖ it said, ―When appointments to the United States Supreme Court are made
on the basis of politics, it is only natural to presume … President Truman might regain some
respect, in this district at least, if he were to put political considerations aside and name the best
lawyer he can find. It wouldn‘t hurt at all, either, if the man had judicial experience.‖
Even well-known Cleveland Democrat Marvin C. Harrison joined the chorus, saying, ―It
would be good politics for the President to appoint … a man who is outstanding in his legal
qualifications rather than one who merely has high political endorsements.‖ The Cleveland Press
gave strong editorial support to Harrison‘s statement. All of these efforts bore fruit. In March,
1951 Judge Charles J. McNamee of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals—a man of
unimpeachable integrity and proven legal and judicial ability—was appointed to fill the vacancy.
Code Revisions
For many years, the Ohio State Bar Association had advocated establishing a Bureau of Code
Revision, and finally the legislature had authorized the creation of such an agency. Former State
Senator Willard D. Campbell of Cambridge was named director, and he set about immediately to
appoint a staff and organize the stupendous task of reviewing the entire statutory law of Ohio. In
one of his early public statements on the subject, Campbell reported that the Ohio General Code
then in effect contained at least 2,500 laws that were either antiquated or had been declared
unconstitutional.
The Passing of John Henney
A single lead paragraph in the issue of the Ohio BAR for April 24, 1950 shocked the lawyers
of the Buckeye State: ―John L. W. Henney, the Ohio legal profession‘s best loved and most
widely known member, is dead.‖ The article went on to describe the life of this dedicated bar
executive: ―Born in Columbus October 23, 1881, he received his early education in Columbus
public schools, and on graduation from North High School, went to work as a newspaper
correspondent, earning enough money to start his higher education at Ohio State University. Two
years later, however, he was compelled to give up further formal schooling by the death of his
father and the need of going to work to aid the family exchequer. He went to work for the late E.
O. Randall, then the reporter for the State Supreme Court. That was in 1903. Mr. Henney
continued to aid Mr. Randall in editing and publishing the opinions of the court … until Mr.
Randall‘s death in 1920. The high court then showed its appreciation for Mr. Henney‘s work by
naming him official reporter. The State Bar Association endorsed the choice immediately by
electing Mr. Henney as its Secretary the same year.‖
It was the sad end of a great era. When John Henney took office in 1920, the Association had
no publication, its headquarters were in a corner of a Columbus law office, there were only 1,089
members, the Secretary‘s salary was $300 per year, the Secretary‘s stenographer received $250
per year, and there was $3,776 in the treasury. John Henney‘s final report as Treasurer (another
office which he filled most capably) showed a cash balance of $18,831.91. He and his two
assistants were earning $10.474 annually, whole the stenographers drew $7,353.50. The
Association was housed (although not very comfortably) in the Judicial Annex of the Capitol. It
had the finest bar publication in the nation, and the membership had increased five-fold. As
President Hengst said, ―An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man. We realize how
applicable that is to the Ohio State Bar Association.‖
Ushering in the „Fifties
As the time of the Annual Meeting approached, a political issue of great interest to lawyers
was heating-up—Ohio‘s Constitution provided that once every twenty years the question of
calling a constitutional convention should be placed before the electors, and various reformminded groups began to beat the drums in support of a convention. The issue attracted the
attention of the planners of the Association‘s Annual Meeting, and a presentation on the subject
was scheduled for the Council of Delegates meeting. Speakers against a constitutional
convention were William E. Bailey of Springfield, Michael G. Heintz of Cincinnati, and George
E. Taylor of Toledo. Those who spoke in favor of the convention were Brooks w. MacCracken
and Arthur Fiske, both of Cleveland, and Murray Seasongood of Cincinnati. The discussion was
so provocative that a special committee was appointed to study the subject.
An indication of the growth of the scope and activity of the Association is evidenced by its
committee structure, and twenty-five different committees were scheduled for reports at the first
session of the 1950 Convention. Two amendments to the state bar Constitution had been
submitted. One would allow a person to serve two consecutive terms on the Executive
Committee (this was defeated), and the other would require the Executive Committee to appoint
a Secretary and Treasurer rather than have the Association members fill those offices by election.
Although no contest had every developed for those offices, the incumbent undoubtedly would
approach the Annual Meeting with some concern, not knowing whether he might be opposed.
The amendment was adopted.
President Hengst referred to the extensive report of the Public Relations Committee and urged
that his listeners give it careful attention. For the first time, a reference was made to television as
a means of conveying the lawyers‘ message to the public, but it was contended that the
individual lawyer in his own office can be the bar‘s best public relations man.
CHAPTER NINE
BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE
“It is now proposed that the lawyers of Ohio establish the Ohio Legal Center,
which with the combined efforts of this Association will seek to improve the
administration of justice and further assist in maintaining the dignity and honor
of the members of the Bar of this State. Thus will be created an instrumentality
paralleling the Inns of the Court of England, which have done so much to throw
off the domination of the kings, to establish liberty, and to promote the
administration of justice.”
George W. Ritter
***
The Thorny Path of Judicial Reform
Paul C. Weick was elected President of the Ohio State Bar Association by acclamation in
Columbus on May 27, 1950. Weick was later appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. After three
years of distinguished service on that court, he was elevated to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. During Judge Weick‘s term as President the Association busied
itself with drafting and refining bills to improve the administration of justice and the practice of
law. As the Association had repeatedly seen, however, the route of lawyers‘ bills through the
legislature is rocky. Some bills passed, but often only after repeated efforts extending over many
legislative sessions. Many bills encountered insurmountable road blocks, and failed.
One bill proposed during Judge Weick‘s administration which experienced such treatment
would have adopted an Ohio version of the federal Tort Claims Act. The concept was finally
enacted about twenty years later as part of the Ohio court of claims act. Other measures which
met resistance in the legislature included a bill to eliminate the immunity of municipalities and
counties for negligent acts, and a bill to do away with the physician-patient privilege when the
patient sued for personal injuries.
The Annual Convention was held in Akron at the Mayflower Hotel on May 10, 11 and 12,
1951, in conformity with the custom of meeting in the home town of the President, established in
1882.
In his annual address President Weick reviewed previous efforts at judicial reform and said,
―As lawyers were must concern ourselves with removing the causes for public complaint in the
administration of justice. We must take steps to improve our courts, which are the ‗work shops‘
of lawyers.‖ He noted with some chagrin that judicial reform was a subject on which the bar
could not agree. He pointed out that in the Ohio State Bar Association two committees were
working on the subject, and these committees had differences if opinion. The Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee, headed by Henry Binns of Columbus, had
prepared a complete revision of the Ohio court system, the report of which covered sixty-two
pages in the Ohio BAR. The report contained a comprehensive history of the origin and growth
of the courts of the state, and called for a unified court system with an appointive judiciary and
the use of commissioners, masters, and deputy judges. Another committee, chaired by Judge
Robert Gorman, concerned itself with securing adoption of the ―Missouri Plan‖ (an appointive
judiciary), but limited its application to the Supreme Court and courts of appeals. Both proposals
were doomed to failure.
An interesting sidelight to the Convention was a poll conducted by the Akron Beacon Journal
among the lawyers in attendance. On candidates for President of the United States, the sampling
showed Senator Robert A. Taft to be the favorite on the Republican side with 44.2% of the vote,
with a three-way tie for second place between General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas
McArthur and Harold Stassen. The favorite Democratic candidate was Senator Paul Douglas of
Illinois with 49.7% of the vote, followed by President Harry S. Truman and General Eisenhower.
The question of whether to call an Ohio Constitutional Convention was also posed, with 70%
favoring calling a convention, 14% opposed, and 16% undecided. This prompted the Beacon
Journal to state editorially, ―When men who know the Constitution best favor a convention fiveto-one, it follows that the 100 year-old document has developed some serious defects.‖ The
people did not agree, since they voted overwhelmingly against calling a convention in 1952.
In 1951 a Group Disability Insurance Plan of the Ohio State Bar association was established.
A sub-committee of the Executive Committee, consisting of C. Kenneth Clark of Youngstown,
Judge Joseph M. Harter of Columbus and William H. Black, Jr. of Toledo, made a thorough
study of the subject and recommended the plan proposed by the Continental Casualty Company
of Chicago. Thus was begun a program of fringe benefits for members of the Association, which
has expanded to include group life insurance and vacation travel trips.
Dealing with the Scourge of Unethical Practitioners
When President Ben C. Boer took office at mid-year in 1951, the 98th General Assembly was
nearing the end of its regular session and 1952 would be an off-year. Thus, no legislative activity
took place during his term.
Nevertheless, other problems demanded attention, with ethics and discipline heading the list.
It was a frustrating subject—since time out of mind attorneys could only be disciplined for
offenses involving ―moral turpitude,‖ which was a slippery concept defying precise definition.
To make matters worse, discipline of erring attorneys was in the hands of the common pleas
courts. There were thus eighty-eight standards of conduct which might be tolerated or not, as the
case might be. In multi-judge courts individual judges were quite apt to apply different standards
within the same county. The result of all this was that effective discipline of unethical
practitioners was difficult at best, and impossible at worst. In 1880, Judge Ranney had warned,
―You cannot bring vice and incompetency up, they simply drag you down,‖ and had urged the
Association to deal with unethical and incompetent practitioners, ―with an unsparing hand.‖ His
successors had regularly repeated the same theme. The sad fact was, however, that the
disciplinary machinery worked badly or not at all, and the bar was unable to do much to purge
itself. The bar‘s lower edge were thus suffered to pursue their devious ways with little fear of
suspension or disbarment.
President Boer devoted the principal part of his annual address to the solution of the problem
created by the unethical and dishonest members of the profession. Without mincing words, he
proposed that the Supreme Court of Ohio, by rule, take exclusive jurisdiction of lawyer
discipline. By this device, local connections and pressures, variable standards, and plain lack of
courage, would be eliminated as factors in the continuing effort to cleanse the profession of its
miscreants. The gauntlet was thrown down, but there was little precedent for what President Boer
was proposing. Nevertheless, the Ohio State Bar Association went to work. Slowly and
deliberately, and with occasional bitter opposition, the work went forward. It culminated finally
in the adoption, in 1956 of what was then known as Rule 27. The disciplinary machinery was not
centralized.
In a letter dated October 18, 1978 to the writer, Boer refers to his presidential address of 1951,
saying, ―That ‗Swan Song‘ said exactly what I felt and meant. There was noting ex tempore
about it. It was reread more than once, posing to be the possibility, in fact, to me the probability,
that the consequences to me would be far from happiness in dealing with the trial courts of the
state, but it remained intact to the letter. It was and is in some respects sheerly brutal, but I hoped
that it would, in time, justify my election to the office. Incidentally, but more, much more,
provoke action that would put an end to the disgrace … At all events we have had discipline of
the unfit in the state of Ohio from the 1957 to the date hereof of which we can all be proud.
The Constitutional Convention Issue
President Boer‘s inspired address was not the only bombshell to explode at the Annual
meeting in Cleveland in May of 1951. Two committees had wrestled with the issue of calling a
state constitutional convention. The first to consider the subject was the American Citizenship
Committee, and it opposed calling a convention. Public interest in the issue was approaching
fever pitch, and to assure that the subject would receive thorough study President Paul C. Weick
had appointed a special Constitutional Convention Committee, chaired by Charles P. Taft of
Cincinnati. The Committee reported to the Council of Delegates that it favored a convention. The
reaction was quick and debate was occasionally bitter.
The main issue, aside from the desire of certain groups to change things, was
reapportionment. The battle lines were drawn between the city lawyers and their rural brethren,
because historically (in Ohio and many other states) the rural bloc had dominated the legislature.
In the Buckeye State this block was solidly Republican, and its members were generally
unsympathetic to demands from the metropolitan counties, whose members were equally solidly
Democratic. The politicians and the press in the northern part of the state, and particularly in
Cleveland, felt that the needs of the big cities were being ignored by the legislature.
After protracted debate the Council accepted the report of the Constitutional Convention
Committee by a narrow margin. The opponents, however, did not give up. The Association
Constitution authorized a referendum on any question which the Council or the Executive
Committee deemed of immediate, practical consequence to the legal profession or the public,
and at the final session of the Convention a motion was made to force a referendum by
submitting the question of whether a referendum should be held to a vote of the entire assembly.
President Boer‘s knowledge of parliamentary procedure was tested by seven different motions,
one of which required each member present to show either his membership card or a convention
registration card (this motion passed and each voter had to comply). The request for a
referendum was denied by a very narrow margin. Another motion was made to refer the matter
of the constitutional convention to a committee with instructions to publicize both sides of the
issue across the state. The motion died for want of a second, but the Association eventually did
what it called for anyway.
Title Insurance
Another issue which heated up the meeting was a proposal to the Council of Delegates by the
Professional Economics Committee that the Association establish a title insurance company. A
question was immediately raised as to whether the purpose clause of the constitution was
sufficiently broad to authorize such action, and on a point of order President Boer ruled that the
clause did not sanction such a move. A motion was then made to refer the matter to the newly
formed Ohio State Bar Foundation, and the motion was passed.
When the Foundation convened, Earl F. Morris, Chairman of the Professional Economics
Committee and George E. Fee of Cincinnati, who had been instrumental in organizing and
carrying out a study of bar-related title companies by the Cincinnati Bar Association, presented
the subject so persuasively that the Foundation approved the idea and caused a committee
consisting of William E. Knepper of Columbus as Chairman and Burton E. Robinson of
Cincinnati, George W. Coen of Lancaster, Jacob Levin of Lorain and Joseph D. Stecher of
Toledo, to be appointed to draft articles of incorporation. Thus began one of the most successful
ventures in the history of the Ohio State Bar Association.
***
The Ohio BAR for June 30, 1952 contained a thumb-nail sketch of the new President of the
Association, Harry S. Wonnell of Hamilton. A native of Eaton, Ohio, he was admitted to the bar
in 1906 and began practice in Columbus. He moved to Hamilton in 1908, where he resided and
carried on the practice of law for the balance of his life. He joined the Ohio State Bar
Association in 1915. On the day of his election to the Presidency in Cleveland, President
Wonnell‘s only child presented him with his first grandchild.
The Association year commenced with an institution on negligence law at Denison
University. Participants re-lived their college days by sleeping in dormitory rooms and eating in
the university dining hall. The institute was such a success that it became a summer fixture on
the Association calendar for many years.
The new President inaugurated a custom, which was to continue sporadically long into the
future, by publishing a President‘s Message in the Ohio BAR in the nature of a report on the state
of the Association. It noted that the reorganization following the death of John L. W. Henney had
been completed, and the Joseph B. Miller was not the Secretary, and Leo P. Enright was the
Treasurer and Business Manager of the Ohio BAR. A new man was added to the staff to assist
the Public Relations Committee—Norton R. Webster of Columbus. In 1967 he became President
of the Association, the only member of the staff to reach that office.
Paul C. Weick was appointed Chairman of the Constitutional Convention Committee, and
exhibited the fairness and even temper which were to stand him in such good stead on the federal
bench in later years. Weick‘s committee prepared a workbook delineating the position of the
Ohio State Bar Association on the question. In the workbook it was stated that the campaign of
the Association would be to fully inform the voters of Ohio by presenting both sides of the issue
in a fair, impartial and lawyer-like fashion. The workbook included lists of the organizations
which had taken stands for and against calling the convention. In favoring a convention, the Ohio
State Bar Association found itself in the company of groups such as the Ohio C.I.O. Council, the
Ohio Council of the American Federation of Labor, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the
Ohio Education Association, and the Ohio Council of Churches.
The Uniform Commercial Code Proposed
November brought the fall meeting of the Council of Delegates. Among the committees
submitting reports to the Council was the Banking and Commercial Law Committee, whose
Chairman, Robert P. Goldman of Cincinnati, reviewed a far-reaching and progressive
recommendation. The Uniform Commercial Code had been approved by the American Law
Institute and the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and now it was time for the legislatures
of the several states to consider the subject. Goldman‘s Committee proposed that the Association
call on the legislature to appoint a joint committee of the House and Senate to study the code,
and that the Governor be requested to appoint a panel of citizens to meet with the joint
committee. The function of the combined group would be to study all relevant material and
prepare a written report for submission to the General Assembly. A further recommendation
called for an appropriation to finance the work of the joint committee, and to pay a professional
staff to draft a bill which would fit the code to Ohio law and practice. Thus began the long and
tortuous trip which culminated in the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code ten years
later.
Real Property and Probate Law
The Real Property Committee, chaired by Walter J. Morgan of Cleveland, also offered a new
subject for consideration. For two years, the Committee had been wrestling with the problem of
establishing a uniform system of real estate title examination in Ohio. To accomplish this
Morgan‘s Committee proposed seventeen title standards. Using the decimal system of
numbering, it was possible to add additional standards as new matters developed. The first set of
standards covered such subjects as the definition of marketability, joint and survivorship deed
language, the form of examination, and the formalities of conveyance. The Council of Delegates
approved the recommendation that the standards be adopted and transmitted to local bar
associations for adoption by them.
Still another much-needed reform was offered by the Probate and Trust Law Committee. It
called for the adoption of a modified prudent man rule for investments by fiduciaries. It, too, had
a difficult journey through the legislature and the Governor‘s office before it finally became law
when the Legislature overrode a veto.
Merit Selection Revisited
A committee which had devoted countless hours to its assignment was the Committee on the
Ohio Judicial System, which prepared a proposed revision of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution
calling for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and courts of appeals by the
Governor from a list submitted by a judicial nominating commission. The members of the
commission would be selected by the Governor. Provision was made in the draft for an office of
Administrative Director of the courts, the appointment of a committee to draft rules of procedure
for all courts, and the creation, by the legislature, of an administrative court of appeals. Chairman
Robert N. Gorman traveled the highways and by-ways of Ohio presenting the plan to district
meetings, bar association gatherings, judges‘ conventions and citizens‘ groups. The plan met the
same fate as it‘s predecessors, i.e. it was not adopted.
Public Relations
District meetings continue to be an effective method of bringing the Ohio State Bar
Association to the lawyers of Ohio. One such meeting at Lancaster offered a program with the
intriguing title, ―Beauty Hints for Our Profession.‖ The speakers were four attractive ladies who
served as local bar association executives: Marion Brock of Akron; Margaret Dean of Toledo;
Martha Jane Hildenbrand of Cincinnati; and Margaret McNamara of Columbus. The thrust of
their presentation was public relations, and they stressed the fact that the individual lawyer has
the obligation to better the relationship between the public and the legal profession.
The same theme was reflected periodically in the Ohio BAR throughout President Wonnell‘s
term, and the new Assistant Secretary, Norton r. Webster, inserted a series of timely public
relations advertisements beamed to the individual lawyer. Each ad occupied a full page, but
contained only a few lines. One said, ―Public Goodwill Cannot Be Purchased-It Is Created By
You.‖ Another contained this message, ―Remember That Your Conduct Reflects On The
Profession At All Times.‖ Another said, ―Be Truthful With Your Clients. Don‘t Make Promises
You Know You Can‘t Keep.‖
The Great Code Revision Victory
When the General Assembly convened in January, 1953, the Association was ready with a full
complement of bills. Thirteen measures which had been endorsed by the Council of Delegates
went into the legislative hopper. Joseph B. Miller was proving his effectiveness as a lobbyist, and
nine of the thirteen measures introduced became law—an exceptional record for any group in the
General Assembly. Among the casualties were a bill authorizing suits against the state, and a
resolution to amend the Ohio Constitution to provide for an appointive judiciary. The final report
on the legislative program singled out the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Carl D.
Sheppard and Representative Kenneth A. Robinson, and Senate Majority Leader C. Stanely
Mechem, House Speaker William Saxbe, and House Majority Leader Kline L. Roberts, for their
fine cooperation.
The biggest accomplishment of the 100th General Assembly was the adoption of the new
Ohio Revised Code. H.B. No. 1 was the culmination of years of painstaking work by the Bureau
of Code Revision. It included 6,870 pages and 6,000,000 words, and was easily the largest bill in
the history of the Ohio legislature. The way through the Judiciary Committees, the rules
Committees and the floors of the House and Senate had not been easy—two things were
uppermost in the minds of the legislators: first, were any changes in substantive law made? And
second, how could this voluminous document be checked for errors? In helping to supply the
answers to these questions, the Ohio State Bar Association, through its committees and staff,
performed yeoman service.
The Ohio State Bar Association had been the earliest advocate of code revision, and when the
bill to create a Bureau of Code Revision was pending in the legislature the Association supported
it strongly. When the bill was passed and the Revision Commission began its work, the
Association‘s district meetings provided a forum for Director Willard Campell and Assistant
Director Albert Giles to describe the work of the Commission. The printing of the final draft of
the revision presented a roadblock because of the high cost, and the Association gave strong
support to the effort to secure an appropriation to cover printing expenses. When the bill was
introduced, representatives of the Association supported it at every step through the General
Assembly.
A letter from Senator Carl D. Sheppard attests to the effectiveness of the Association in
securing passage of H.B. No. 1. He said, ―In the enactment of the Revised Code of Ohio, the
Ohio State Bar Association performed a service far beyond the formal requirements of the
occasion. In fact, I feel it my duty as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee … to say, in
my judgment, your association saved the Code from almost certain defeat … You convinced the
public and many senators that the Code was a worthy embodiment of the rules of community
living in the middle of the twentieth century.‖ The American Bar Association granted an Award
of Merit to the Ohio State Bar Association in recognition of its efforts on code revision.
***
The year was not without a measure of sadness. On January 17, 1943, Leo P. Enright, the
Treasurer and Assistant Secretary, died. He was loved and respected by all who knew him. His
work in membership recruitment helped immeasurably in raising the total number of Association
members to over 7,800. A native of Cleveland, he attended Western Reserve University and
obtained a law degree from Baldwin-Wallace College. He was admitted to the bar in 1925,
practiced in Cleveland for fifteen years, and then moved to Columbus. He joined the Ohio State
Bar Association staff in 1943.
An important accomplishment of President Wonnell‘s term was the laying of the groundwork
for the Ohio Bar Title Insurance Company. A committee composed of James S. Stubbs,
chairman, Frank J. Collopy, Jerome A. Lischkoff and E. S. Young, working in cooperation with
William E. Knepper, representing the Ohio State Bar Foundation, and George e. Fee, of the
Cincinnati Bar Association, prepared articles of incorporation and a code of regulations. Here
was a long step forward in the preservation of an important segment of the law business for Ohio
lawyers. The progress of this company under its first president, Virgil Schaeffer, and later his
son, Bradley Schaeffer, has been phenomenal.
The 1953 Annual Meeting took place in the Netherland Plaza in Cincinnati. President
Wonnell‘s Butler County Bar Association joined with the Cincinnati Bar Association to host the
meeting. Total attendance exceeded 1,000, including wives of members.
The highlight of the convention was an address by Senator John W. Bricker entitled,
―Bringing the Constitution Up-To-Date.‖ In a well-documented and scholarly speech, he
skillfully reviewed the reasons why the proposed Bricker amendment to the U.S. Constitution
should be adopted. The Senator‘s Resolution, sponsored by sixty-three members of the Senate,
called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent abuse of the treaty-making power.
The motivation was the surge of activity in the United Nations to propose treaties dealing with
every phase of domestic life in the member nations. Bricker‘s specific purpose was to insure that
our Constitution would supersede any foreign treaty in domestic matters.
***
The big news at the outset of the administration of C. Kenneth Clark was the newly-adopted
Ohio Revised Code. The Commission on Code Revision submitted its final report,
recommending that a permanent, non-political research authority be established to make certain
that the orderly system established in the Revised Code would remain inviolate.
Recognition was accorded the Ohio State Bar Association, for its part in securing the
appointment of the Commission and in assisting in the recodification, at the American Bar
meeting in Boston in August, 1953. The Award of Merit for outstanding and constructive work
was presented to President Clark. The award is the highest honor given to large state bar
associations by the American Bar Association.
The Junior Bar was now a well established unit of the Association. A perusal of the names of
the committee members attests to the fact that the indoctrination they received in bar association
work trained them for bigger things. The 1953-54 group included Chairman J. Dean Strausbaugh
of Columbus, now a judge of the Court of Appeals; Kennedy Legler of Dayton and Robert C.
Acton of Springfield, who served on the Executive Committee; and Jamille G. Jamra of Toledo
and Erle H. Bridgewater of Athens, both future presidents of the Association.
An event of singular importance in legal circles in the United States was under way in 1953—
the American Bar Center was under construction in Chicago. Ohio lawyers had already raised
$58,000, or 74% of their quota. The fund-raising campaign in the Buckeye State was being
directed by Ralph A. Marburger of Columbus, and assisting him were Paul C. Weick of Akron,
Oliver C. Martin of Canton, Carl M. Jacobs and Charles G. Puchta of Cincinnati, John L.
McChord of Cleveland, Earl F. Morris and Arthur Sebastian of Columbus, Philip C. Ebeling of
Dayton, Fred A. Smith of Toledo and Myron E. Ullman of Youngstown. The need for such a
center was clearly apparent. The American Bar offices were located in various parts of Chicago,
as well as in Denver and Omaha, which was a singularly inefficient arrangement for the dispatch
of the business of so large and prestigious an organization.
In November, the legal profession in Ohio suffered a great loss when Judge Edward S.
Matthias died at the age of 80. A veteran of the Spanish-American War, Judge Matthias had
served on Ohio‘s highest court for nearly forty years, longer than any of the 118 members the
court had had in its 150 years. In his long tenure he had served with thirty-six judges and written
over 1,000 opinions.
At the meeting of the Council of Delegates, past President Benjamin C. Boer presented a
proposal to implement the theme of his 1951 presidential address, namely that the disciplinary
system in Ohio be revamped. To support his position he submitted a copy of the report of the
American Bar Association Committee on Disciplinary Procedures. Boer also presented a
statement of principles which embodied the essential feature of Rule 27 (as eventually adopted
by the Ohio Supreme Court). Thus, the movement to provide effective lawyer discipline was
under way.
The Council considered the question of denying membership to communists, and voted
emphatically in favor of keeping them out of the Association. It also endorsed the right of a
lawyer to defend people, regardless of the unpopularity of their cause, and promised the support
of the organized bar.
The Ohio Bar Title Insurance Company Incorporates
A full-page advertisement appeared in a year-end issue of the Ohio BAR announcing that the
articles of incorporation of the Ohio Bar Title Insurance Company had been filed on July 23,
1953 by a committee of the Ohio State Bar Foundation. The advertisement further stated that
subscriptions for preferred shares were being received, and inquiries should be directed to Mac
Lee Henney, Trustee for the Company. Henney continues to serve the Company as Secretary of
the corporation and as a member of the board of directors.
Another advertisement was a full-page holiday greeting from the members of the
Association‘s office staff, Betty Parlette, Irene Showden, Dottie Denman, and Sharon Knight,
and Secretaries Joseph B. Miller and Norton r. Webster.
Bar Meetings
Aronhold Schapiro of Portsmouth, Chairman of the Local Bar Activities Committee, departed
from custom by scheduling an Association function on a Sunday. It was the Local Bar Officer
Conference (a new event), and was calculated to bring local bar associations into closer contact
with the Ohio State Bar Association. The meeting was held in December at the Deshler-Wallick
Hotel in Columbus. A survey of the economics of the legal profession was being conducted by
the Committee on Professional Economics with the assistance of the Department of Economics
of The Ohio State University, and Willis S. Siferd of Lima reported to the Local Bar Officers
Conference on the status of the survey. A panel discussion on the problems and work of small
bar associations was presented by William L. Howland, President of the Portsmouth Bar and
Law Library Association, Maxwell Finkleman of Middletown, President of the Butler County
Bar Association, and Andrew M. Keep of Lorain, past President of the Lorain County Bar
Association. Other subjects presented were: a discussion on grievance procedure by Harry F.
Pattie of Cleveland, Judge Myron B. Gessaman of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court and
David M. Postlewaite of Columbus; and a session on public relations, featuring James M. Hinton
of Akron, William L. Howell of Mt. Vernon, and Norton r. Webster of the State Bar staff, and
Judge Raymond A. Younger of Celina as moderator. A luncheon and reception rounded out a
very successful meeting.
The Junior Bar Committee scheduled a meeting for young lawyers of the state in Columbus.
Two sessions with appealing titles were scheduled. The first was on, ―The Art of Building a
Practice,‖ and the speakers were Charles H. Keating Jr. of Cincinnati and Edward s. Noble of St.
Marys. After digesting this worthwhile information the young barristers heard Charles A.
Kienzle of Columbus, William L. Howland of Portsmouth and Bryce W. Kendall of Salem
deliver lectures on, ―How to Hold the Business You Have.‖ As an afterthought, and perhaps in
case too much enthusiasm might be generated, Henry S. Drinker of Philadelphia, Chairman of
the American Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct, discussed,
―Ethics is Your Business.‖
***
The 1954 Annual Meeting was held in Youngstown, the home of President C. Kenneth Clark.
The Pick-Ohio Hotel was barely able to accommodate the approximately 850 lawyers and wives
who attended. In fact, the rush for seats at the banquet produced a few torn dresses on the ladies.
It was the last time Youngstown was used as a site for full Association meetings, and thus the
Mahoning Valley metropolis joined a growing list of Ohio cities whose hotel and meeting
facilities were inadequate to handle so large a convention.
President Clark summarized the work of the Association in his annual address, and offered
suggestions for future action. He noted that Joseph B. Miller, the Executive Secretary, had been
honored by his peers with his election to the Presidency of the National Conference of Bar
Secretaries. The membership of the State Bar was approaching the 8,000 mark, and thus included
nearly three-fourths of the judges and lawyers of Ohio.
Looking to the future, President Clark sounded a new call for higher judicial salaries. He said
that Ohio had more industries than any other state, and more cities with populations over 40,000,
and that it was one of the richest and most populous states, but that it spent far less than any
comparable state for judicial compensation.
The Council of Delegates meeting was attended by fifty-two of the sixty-five elected
members. It adopted a resolution condemning the activities of attorneys who bring the profession
into disrepute. After a lively debate, it also placed the Association on record as favoring a bill
pending in Congress to include lawyers in the Social Security System.
Judges‟ Compensation
Judicial reform was the watchword of the Presidency of John C. Durfey of Springfield.
Recognizing that Ohio judges were woefully underpaid, and were victims of a penurious
retirement system, the Executive Committee planned a four-pronged attack to rectify the
situation. It set up a program calling for decent salary increases for all Ohio judges, an adequate
retirement system, administrative assistance for the Chief Justice, and a constitutional
amendment to provide for judicial selection and tenure and to remove the prohibition against
judicial salary increases during term.
The prohibition against salary increases during term had created an anomalous situation in
Ohio. Different members of multi-judge courts were being paid different salaries for the same
work, because those judges elected after the effective date of the act could benefit.
Chief Justice Weygandt brought this problem into sharp focus by submitting his resignation as
Chief Justice on November 29, 1954. At the urging of the Governor, members of the bench and
bar, and political leaders of both parties, Judge Weygandt reconsidered. In a letter to the
Governor he pointed out that Delaware, which ranked forty-sixth in population among the states,
paid higher judicial salaries than Ohio, which stood sixth among the states. He also revealed that
Ohio ranked lowest among all of the states in the per capita cost of operating its highest court.
When the legislature adjourned, Earl Morris, Chairman of the Judicial Reform Committee,
stated only partly in jest that three and one-half points of the four-point program of his
Committee had come through the legislative mill. The judicial salary bill covering all Ohio
judges except municipal judges passed. A separate bill, which also passed, provided salary
increases for municipal judges. The question of a separate judicial retirement system has always
met heavy opposition in the Ohio General Assembly, and the Association‘s retirement bill was
no exception. The Public Employees Retirement system had caused a rival measure to be
introduced improving the benefits for all public employees, and the backers of the Association
bill chose this measure as the vehicle by which to improve judicial pensions because the separate
judicial pension bill seemed doomed. Under the PERS bill some judges would receive greater
benefits, and others with less service would receive lower benefits, than those provided in the
original Association bill, but half a loaf is better than none and Earl Morris and Fred Milligan
therefore elected to support the Public Employees‘ bill (which passed). The final measure in the
four-point package was the bill to create the office of Administrative Assistant to the Supreme
Court. It passed early in the session, and carried with it an appropriation of $10,100 per year to
cover salary and travel expenses.
The corporation code amendments proposed by the Ohio State Bar Association passed, and
resulted in an entirely new non-profit corporation law for the state. Also the changes in the
general corporation act represented the first major revision of that law in many years.
In retrospect, while most of the state bar bills failed of passage, the ones that did pass
represented a major accomplishment for the two staff men and for Earl Morris, Fred Milligan
and the many committee chairmen and committee members who gave to unstintingly of their
time and talent in guiding the Association‘s legislative program.
The Ohio Bar title Insurance Company begins Operations
After several years of careful preparation, the Ohio Bar Title Insurance Company was ready to
do business. It received its license on April 15, 1955. The officers were: Virgil Schaeffer of
Dayton, President; Fredriks D. Berger of Cincinnati, Vice President; Mac Lee Henney of
Columbus, Secretary; James M. Hengst of Columbus, Treasurer; and L. Turner Carson of
Dayton, Chief Title Officer. The principal office of the company was in Dayton. The Board of
Directors consisted of: Dudley R. Avery of Bowling Green; Bitner Browne of Springfield; Phil
D. Butler of Chillicothe; George D. Coen of Lancaster; Robert L. Hausser of Marietta; William
E. Knepper of Columbus; Fred C. Lamping of Cincinnati; Leon P. Loechler of Columbus; James
W. Mumaw of Youngstown; John Packan of Akron; Earl D. Ruetz of Massillon; A. H. West of
Elyria; and Ben D. Worcester of Middletown. Of that number, Browne, Berger, Coen, Hausser,
Henney, Lamping, and Mumaw still serve. Bradley Schaeffer and Harold West have replaced
their fathers.
Trial Publicity
The Fair Trial—Free Press issue was a topic of lively discussion in the mid 1950‘s. The
matter is also of interest now, with pressure to relax the long-standing rules in Ohio and other
states which generally place in the discretion of the individual judges the question of trial
publicity and the extent of press involvement. Senator Joseph McCarthy‘s feud with the United
States Army and the State Department was boiling in 1954 and 1955, and the hearings on the
proposal to censure the Senator occupied prime time on radio and television. This spurred a drive
by the media to invade the nation‘s courtrooms with their sophisticated electronic equipment.
Their battle cry was, ―the People‘s Right to Know.‖
Judge George H. Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington wrote an article on the subject of courtroom publicity, in which he said, ―Ordeal by
Publicity‖ is the legitimate great-grandchild of Ordeal by Fire, Water and Battle.‖ He noted that
the physical harm of those methods of trial was more severe than that of their present-day
descendant, but that mental injury to the litigant and damage to society generally from the
violence of unnecessary publicity, was far greater. He said, ―The serious harm of trial by or with
publicity is so great that no individual judge ought to have the power of inflicting it under any
circumstances.‖ Addressing himself to the twin claims of the media, namely, the people‘s right
to know and the constitutional reference to a public trial, the jurist said that the people‘s only
right and concern in any trial was that the trial be conducted fairly and impartially in as calm,
detached and dispassionate a manner as is humanly possible. On the public trial aspect he
pointed out that that was for the benefit of the defendant in criminal cases.
Diamond Jubilee
As spring approached, the thoughts of Ohio State Bar Association members turned to the
Diamond Jubilee meeting to be held at Dayton.
Great plans were afoot. Matthew J. Smith of New Philadelphia wrote a brief history of the
organization which was published in the American Bar Journal. The Ohio Supreme Court
scheduled a special session in the Biltmore Hotel to honor Judge Rufus P. Ranney for his three
elections to the Supreme Court and for his service as the first President of the Association.
Ranney‘s picture graced the cover page of the Ohio BAR. By proclamation of Governor Frank J.
Lausche, May 19, 1955 was designated as ―Ohio State Bar Association Day.‖ In it the Governor
urged that public and private agencies, the press, and the general public give proper recognition
to the Association. He acknowledged that the Association had contributed greatly to the
promotion of good, to ethical conduct, to raising the standards of the administration of justice,
and to the study of jurisprudence.
The Convention itself was an action-packed affair. Registrants received a Diamond Jubilee
program of thirty-two pages, containing photographs of the Supreme Court, Judge Ranney and
the officers, and a short history of the Association. The first Journalism Award was given to the
Toledo Blade in recognition of its support of the State Bar‘s four-point judicial reform program.
One of the most inspiring events of the Annual Meeting was the presentation of awards to
attorneys who had practiced law for fifty years or more. Among this group was Simeon M.
Johnson of Cincinnati, who was admitted to the bar in 1880, the same year that the Ohio State
Bar Association was founded. Born in 1859, Johnson had been President of the Association in
1912, and had been active in Democratic politics on the local, state and national level. His son,
George, a Cincinnati attorney, accepted the award for him.
A session on ―Courtroom Publicity‖ enlivened the Saturday morning meeting of the delegates.
Vice President Fred A. Smith argued the bar‘s position. He was opposed by James E. Fain,
Executive Editor of the Dayton Daily News, and Elisha Hanson of Washington, D.C., general
counsel of the Newspaper Publishers Association. Hanson alleged that the public is entitled to
knowledge as to what goes on in our courts and that it is the right of the people to have
information. Vice President Smith quickly pointed out that there was no ―right to know‖ clause
in the Constitution. He added, ―Comment in the press on such matters (witnesses‘ statements) in
advance tends to prejudice a person‘s right to a fair trial, a right which the constitution does
guarantee.: Fain charged that the opponents of courtroom photography were lagging behind the
march of science. To prove his point, he sent photographers through the hall snapping pictures of
the assembled lawyers, using modern cameras that did not require flash attachments.
President Durfey in his annual address could point proudly to the fact that the Association had
completed drafting the proposed new disciplinary rule, and that the Special Committee had filed
its petition for adoption of the rule with the Supreme Court on April 29. On another matters, the
President stated that the office staff was extremely short-handed with two men and four women,
which was the same size as the staff which served the Association in 1936 when the membership
was only 3,000. He said that the staff members were dedicated but over-worked, and that at least
two more people were needed to carry on the program of an Association which had attained the
dignity and size of seventy-five years and over 8,000 members. Durfey bluntly called for the
Association to plan for the future. It was time, he said, to seek new quarters adequate for the
needs of a completely mature and independent organization.
Recognizing that many of the bills sponsored by the Association in the Legislature were
doomed to failure, Durfey called for a reorganization of the process by which proposals move
from the Association‘s committees to the General Assembly. Specifically, he suggested, there
must be more time between final action by the Council of Delegates on bar legislation and the
opening of the legislative session. Durfey also cautioned against the tendency to present too
many bills.
The contest for the Vice Presidency was the most hotly-fought of recent years. Nearly every
issue of the Ohio BAR carried the report of an endorsement of one or the other of the two
candidates. One of the aspirants to the post, Aronhold Schapiro of Portsmouth, scored a first with
a full-page notice in the Ohio BAR listing a large number of lawyers who sponsored his
candidacy. It was to no avail—Earl Morris, strongly backed by a large contingent of Columbus
lawyers, emerged the victor. He had earned the respect and gratitude of Ohio lawyers and judges
because of his work in organizing and shepherding the four-point judicial reform program
through the legislature.
Professional Economics
President Fred Smith‘s term started on an auspicious note when the July 4, 1956 issue of the
Ohio BAR reported that the legislature had enacted virtually all of the Association‘s four-point
program of judicial reform. Only the retirement plan for judges suffered a reverse, and that was
but a partial one. The bill as enacted gave substantial increases in benefits to judges who retired
after twenty years of service, while those who retired after only twelve years of service were
restricted to the regular benefits provided in the Public Employees Retirement Act.
For several years, the Committee on Professional Economics had been engaged in developing
a survey of the economic status of the various trades and professions. The Committee was ably
assisted by Milton Kafoglis of the Department of Economics at The Ohio State University and
his wife, Madelyn Kafoglis. One phase of the study compared the income of lawyers, doctors
and dentists for three different periods between 1929 and 1951. In that span, lawyers‘ income
increased 58%, doctors‘ 157% and dentists‘ 83%. In the eleven years between 1940 and 1951,
which spanned World War II and the postwar period, the percentage increase in physicians‘
income was a spectacular 202%, dentists‘ income increased 136%, while the increase in lawyers‘
income was a mere 94%. One explanation can be found in the total numbers in each profession.
In 1930 there were 160,605 lawyers, 153,803 doctors and only 71,055 dentists. By 1950 the
attorney population had jumped by nearly 44,000, while the medical profession had increased by
about 38,000 and the dentists by only 4,000.
The survey gave the median income for lawyers in Ohio in 1949 as $6,261, which was $4
higher than the national median. In Connecticut the median was the highest at $8,125 while
South Carolina was the lowest at $4,442.
***
The fall election campaign was the signal for renewed activity by the Ohio State Bar
Association. The resolution adopted by the General Assembly permitting increases or decreases
in judicial salaries during term had to be approved by the voters of Ohio. A similar resolution
applying to certain county officials had also been adopted and was on the fall ballot. Earl F.
Morris headed the campaign for the Association‘s proposal. His group joined forces with the
county officials to form, ―the Committee for Improved Public Service,‖ to push for the adoption
of both amendments. The Committee was headed by former State Treasurer Don H. Ebright of
Cleveland. The Vice Chairman for Murray Lincoln, President of Nationwide Insurance
Companies. They gathered a widely-divergent group together and mounted a strong campaign. It
was not strong enough. The voters turned down the judicial salary amendment.
The fall committee meeting in Columbus saw an innovation calculated to promote closer
liaison between the various standing and special committees and the Executive committee.
Members of the latter were assigned to visit each of the standing and special committees. The
new system worked well.
One of the most useful and progressive activities undertaken by an Ohio State Bar Association
committee in many years was the development of the pamphlet series by the Public Relations
Committee. These pamphlets covered such subjects as wills, home buying, marriage and many
others. They were extremely well received by churches, civic groups, and local bar associations.
The newest addition to the series was a fourteen-page booklet on jury service, which became
available early in 1956.
A New Bar Headquarters Proposed
A forward-looking move was proposed by the Executive committee in February, 1956.
Recognizing that the Association‘s quarters in the State House Annex were hopelessly
inadequate, the group went on record as favoring the construction of a new headquarters
building. Earl F. Morris had been appointed chairman of a sub-committee to study the matter and
discuss it with the Ohio State Bar Foundation. President Smith said in support of the idea, ―…
construction of a bar center for Ohio will alert the public to the public services rendered by the
Ohio State Bar.‖
The month of February also saw the implementation of one phase of the judicial reform
program. Judge John W. McMillan of the Probate Court of Morrow County was appointed to the
newly created post of administrative assistant to the Supreme Court.
The Annual Meeting of the Association was scheduled for President Smith‘s hometown of
Toledo. After much agonizing, the Executive Committee adopted a rule calling for payment of a
$5 registration fee by each convention visitor. Apparently, it was not a deterrent to attendance,
for over 1,150 judges, lawyers, and wives were on hand. It was a busy and entertaining meeting.
Two constitutional amendments occupied the attention of the members. The first raised dues
from $16 to $25 and the other—indicative of the growth of Ohio‘s lawyer population—added
two new districts for the purpose of election of Executive Committeemen and members of the
Council of Delegates. Both amendments were adopted.
The Growth of the Association
In his presidential address, Fred Smith recited the growth in the size and scope of activities of
the Association. There were now 8,500 members. The Council of Delegates and the various
committees were meeting twice a year. Smith estimated that these meetings involved the
expenditure of more than $1,000,000 worth of billable time by Ohio lawyers. Referring to the
work of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the President stated that the volume of
work was such that it could no longer be handled on a volunteer basis by the committee
members. He called for the appointment of an assistant secretary who would devote his full time
to the subject.
Smith then addressed himself to the Association‘s most pressing problem, the need for
adequate headquarters space. He announced that discussions had been held with officials of The
Ohio State University, who had expressed a willingness to cooperate in the construction of a
legal center adjoining the new law school building. With this development, Smith envisioned the
possibility of a group of buildings similar to the Inns of Court in England. The University was
constructing dormitories and an auditorium, and the voters had approved a bond issue for
additional buildings. Smith expressed the hope that a judiciary building housing the Supreme
Court and the Attorney General‘s office might be included in the complex. The more grandiose
parts of his plan did not materialize, but a legal center was built, and Fred Smith will always be
remembered as the motivating force behind the concept.
***
Earl F. Morris began a year of innovation and accomplishment by introducing a new feature
in the Ohio BAR, called ―The President‘s Page.‖ In it, Morris outlined the goals of his
administration and periodically reported progress toward these goals. The principal objectives
listed by president Morris were: the establishment of a new headquarters building, either on the
campus of The Ohio State University or elsewhere in Columbus; an educational campaign and
referendum on the Missouri Plan for selection of judges; a more effective legislative program;
improved continuing legal education courses; and re-vitalized district meetings. When Earl
Morris delivered his presidential address at the Annual Meeting in Columbus in May, 1957, he
could advise the membership that all but one of the above goals had been achieved, and that
substantial progress had been made on the remaining goal.
Perhaps the greatest success was the adoption by the Ohio Supreme Court of Rule XXVII,
relating to lawyer discipline. The rule was first proposed by Benjamin C. Boer in 1952, and the
Association had labored long and hard to perfect a workable rule for submission to the Supreme
Court. With the adoption of the rule by the court, Ohio jumped into the forefront of all the states
in effective lawyer discipline.
In another area, the State Bar joined with the Ohio State Medical Association to develop a
statement of principles governing the use in evidence of medical reports and expert testimony by
doctors. The statements were distributed to local bar associations and academies of medicine for
adoption and use by them.
Continuing legal education had been plagued by lack of coordination. Conflicts in dates and
places, and overlapping of subject matters, occurred with disturbing regularity. A meeting on the
problem was held during the Association Convention, and was attended by representatives of
Ohio law schools, large and small local bar associations, and the Ohio State Bar Association to
study the problem and develop solutions.
The Association‘s legislative program regularly presented many thorny problems. One of the
most difficult tasks was to determine which proposal from what committee would be cleared for
presentation to the General Assembly. The Council of Delegates usually met in November and
the legislature convened in early January, and there was thus little time to select and polish the
bills and obtain sponsors for them. A rule was adopted which provided that any committee report
which included a bill for submission to the legislature would have to be approved at the May
meeting of the Council of Delegates. In this way, there would be ample time to distribute the
bills to local bar associations for comment, and to check the bills thoroughly prior to the opening
of the legislative session.
Other successful programs were: the inauguration of a publication known as the Ohio Lawyer;
the addition of 487 new members to the roster; a corporate counsel institute and an institute on
trial practice; and the appointment of a Committee on Legal Forms and Worksheets. Morris also
called for the appointment of a select committee to study the administration of the Ohio court
system to determine what changes, if any, should be made to improve it.
President Morris alluded to one goal that had not been reached—the negotiation of an
agreement with the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University for a site on the campus for
the new headquarters building. The University was understandably hesitant to give up land on
the campus for what might be considered an extraneous purpose. However, the persistent efforts
of Morris and Fred Smith, Chairman of the Headquarters Committee, helped lay the groundwork
for a reasonable solution to the problem, and the Board of Trustees finally agreed to acquire the
land adjoining the campus on the south side of West 11th Avenue as a building site.
Interest in the committee work of the Ohio State Bar Association reached a record level in
1956. Attendance at the group meetings was the highest in history. Many new and constructive
activities were inaugurated. The Junior Bar, under the leadership of George B. Raup of
Springfield, published a practice and procedure handbook. The American Citizenship
Committee, chaired by Sidney G. Kusworm of Dayton, launched a ―Get Out The Vote‖
campaign. The Insurance Law Committee promoted a bill on group life insurance, calculated to
make possible a group life program for association members. The Public Relations Committee
prepared and issued a new pamphlet on installment buying.
The death of Simeon M. Johnson in April of 1957 saddened Ohio lawyers. The 98 year-old
Cincinnatian was admitted to practice in 1880, the year the Ohio State Bar Association was
founded. He joined the Association in 1892, and in 1912 he was its President. He was known for
his custom of offering a resolution of appreciation for the work of the retiring President at the
close of each Convention.
An important feature of the 1957 Annual Meeting was the adoption of three constitutional
amendments. Two of them served to conform the Association‘s Constitution to the new
disciplinary rule. The third authorized the Executive Committee to provide for the organization
and governance of sections. With the growth of the membership to over 8,500, only about 10%
of the members could participate in the committee work. By authorizing sections, many more
lawyers could participate in Association work involving their special fields of interest. Thus the
pendulum had swung back again.
Sections and Committees
The Buckeye barristers gathered in Akron on May 22, 1958, for their 78th Annual Meeting. It
had been a busy year for the committees of the Ohio State Bar Association and one that produced
substantial results for the benefit of the public and the membership. President Aronhold C.
Schapiro of Portsmouth pointed out that there were now thirty-seven committees operating, with
over 800 Association members serving on those committees. Interest was so great in the work of
these groups that the Executive Committee lifted the ban on sections which had existed for many
years, and authorized creation of a Section on Real Property Law. The existing Real Property
Committee, of which Leon Loechler of Columbus was chairman, would become the Board of
Governors of the new group.
The feeling about sections has waxed and waned in the Ohio State Bar Association. They
have been fixtures in the American Bar Association for many years, and most state organizations
have gone along with the idea because they give a broader opportunity for individual
participation in the work of the organized bar and tend to attract more people to the conventions.
In one sense they have been counter-productive, because section meetings often conflict with
general sessions of the Association, and section members absent themselves in large numbers
from the latter in favor of the former. When this became a serious problem in the Ohio State Bar
Association, sections were eliminated in favor of smaller committees, but this created
widespread dissatisfaction, too. No satisfactory solution has been found.
During the period from July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958, the Association‘s accent was on
committee work. The results proved the wisdom of this—during the preceding year, President
Earl F. Morris had appointed a special committee on Legal Forms and Work Sheets chaired by
George W. Coen of Lancaster, which prepared a desk manual containing a broad collection of
office and court forms as well as check lists for a wide variety of subjects which arise in the
practice of law. These were in loose-leaf form, and were furnished free to all members of the
Association.
Merit Selection Revised
C. Kenneth Clerk, a former president of the Ohio State Bar Association, had labored long for
judicial reform. As chairman of the Constitutional Amendment Referendum Committee, he
received substantial encouragement at the end of 1957 when the Council of Delegates, after
approving a plan for a constitutional amendment calling for judicial nominating commissions,
directed that a referendum be taken to determine the attitude of the Association membership on
the proposal. An explanatory brochure was mailed to all members, and a comprehensive
campaign to develop support for the amendment was launched. Local bar associations
cooperated by sponsoring meetings with speakers who explained the proposal. Well over half of
the membership voted, and 63.7% favored the proposal. With this result in hand, the
Constitutional Amendment Committee turned the matter over to the Council of Delegates and
the Executive Committee for further action. Recognizing the wishes of the majority, the Council
of Delegates approved the constitutional amendment resolution, and the Executive Committee
concurred and directed the staff to seek legislative sponsorship for the measure.
***
The Insurance Law Committee did considerable work on group life insurance. Certain
statutory changes were required to permit the general marketing of such a product, and these
were accomplished. The ground work was laid for the creation of a group life package for the
State Bar.
The UCC
A subject which rivaled the merit judicial selection plan for longevity in the Association was
the Uniform Commercial Code. Robert P. Goldman of Cincinnati had long been an advocate of
political reform in his hometown. He was a member of the Charter Party, which was
instrumental in establishing the city manager plan in the Queen City, and his zeal for reform
carried over into the law. As chairman of the Committee on Banking and Commercial Law, he
was a strong advocate of the Uniform Commercial Code. His committee, after years of thorough
study and review, recommended that the code (with certain revisions based upon experiences in
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Kentucky) be approved by the Association, and that a bill to
enact the code be presented to the 1959 session of the Ohio General Assembly. The
recommendation was adopted and the Association girded its loins for legislative battle.
Here was a proposal that would have a profound effect upon the business community of Ohio,
and would simplify commercial transactions for the general public. Nevertheless, opposition
appeared immediately in the form of one of the most powerful lobbies in Columbus, the Ohio
Bakers‘ Association. The banks, unquestionably, would be affected more than anyone by the
UCC if it were enacted. Their position was that such a complicated and all-inclusive bill required
more study. That view prevailed and the bill died, in spite of heroic efforts by Goldman and his
committee, and the Association staff.
***
The Public Relations Committee received a substantial boost when J. Thurman Hively, Jr. was
hired as an Assistant Secretary on the staff of the Ohio State Bar Association, to work in the field
of public relations. In its annual report the Committee announced that 2,245,374 pamphlets on
such subjects as wills, home buying, jury service, and other subjects had been distributed since
the project was started.
The Treasurer‘s Report for the year ending December 31, 1957, showed a healthy fiscal
growth from the original net egg of 1880. Total income was $185,141, and expenses were
$1550,558.57, for a net gain of $34,582.43. The total cash assets of the Association were
$107,088.75.
The Ohio Bar Title Insurance Company was now in its third year of operation. It reported that
it had issued more than 9,100 title policies for a face amount of over $131,000,000. Its preferred
stock was held by approximately 900 lawyers and the common stock was held by the Ohio State
Bar Foundation. Six hundred approved attorneys and sixty agents represented this bar-operated
title company in every section of Ohio.
A portent of things to come was the action of the Executive Committee in approving a policy
of professional liability insurance for lawyers. This policy, offered by Seibert-Keck Insurance
Agency, Inc. of Akron, was available for a three-year term and included Securities Act coverage,
title abstracting, and a fifteen-year discovery period.
***
The Akron convention featured an imposing array of speakers headed by the President of the
American Bar Association, Charles S. Rhyne of Washington, D.C. The Ohio State Bar
Association‘s emphasis on unauthorized practice violations was praised by Warren H. Resh in
his speech to the Local Bar Activities dinner on the opening night of the meeting. Resh, an
assistant attorney general of Wisconsin, was the Editor of Unauthorized Practice News, a
publication of the American Bar Association. President Schapiro called upon an old friend and
one time Portsmouth neighbor, Canon Lawrence Hall of Cleveland, for the humorous touch at
the closing luncheon session. Hall, an Episcopal minister and amateur magician, regaled the
audience with many anecdotes, not the least of which concerned a service club Christmas party
in Portsmouth where President Schapiro, a member of the Jewish faith, led the group in singing,
―Silent Night, Holy Night.‖
One of the features of the convention was a simulated personal injury trial featuring
prominent plaintiff‘s and defendant‘s counsel and with jurors selected from among the lawyers
in attendance at the meeting. After the convention programs had been printed, a caller at
Association headquarters in Columbus presented a dossier of purported affidavits concerning
alleged solicitation of business by the lawyer who had been selected to act as attorney for the
plaintiff in the mock trial. Panic set in. Should the program be cancelled? Where could a
substitute be located at such a late date? Cool heads prevailed and an investigation was launched
to ascertain the caller‘s background. It turned out that he had attempted to shake-down the
lawyer in question, by using copies of documents which had been involved in a previous
unfounded complaint. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief and the mock trial went on as
scheduled.
The convention concluded with the election of William R. Van Aken of Cleveland to the
Presidency and Allan B. Diefenbach of Akron to the Vice-Presidency, both without opposition.
The Ohio Legal Center Project is Launched
The key word for the Ohio State Bar Association in the year beginning July 1, 1958 was
money. The decision had been reached to locate the new headquarters building on the campus of
The Ohio State University. A very satisfactory arrangement had been negotiated with the Board
of Trustees of the University and the Ohio State Bar Foundation whereby the funds would be
raised by the Foundation, and the land would be supplied and the building built, maintained and
serviced by the University. Now it was up to the lawyers to supply the money to make the dream
come true.
Indications were that the building would cost $600,000. It would be the first capital fund drive
in the history of the Association, and committees were set up and goals established for each of
the eighty-eight counties. Professional fund raisers were interviewed, but their proposals were
rejected. The campaign started slowly but gained momentum after the first of the year. Memorial
gifts and contributions of material and furnishings helped swell the coffers, but the greatest
surprise was still to come. By the time of the annual meeting in Cincinnati on May 21, 1959,
over $332,000 had been given or pledged. When that information was conveyed to George Ritter
of Toledo, who had initially conceived the idea of a headquarters building, he announced that if
the other lawyers would raise a total of $450,000, he personally would contribute $150,000.
Success was at hand.
***
It was a busy year for the Ohio State Bar Association on other fronts too. ―Law Day U.S.A.‖
had been inaugurated as an American Bar Association project, and it had first been carried out in
Ohio in the previous year. The Public Relations Committee, under the leadership of Norton R.
Webster of Columbus and Francis L. Dale of Cincinnati, undertook to expand the project by
calling it, ―Law In Your Life Week‖. A packet was prepared and circulated to all local bar
associations, containing material describing an Annual Legal Check-Up program as well as copy
for institutional advertising to promote the idea. The purpose of the Annual Legal Check-Up was
to encourage the members of the public to see their lawyer regularly, just as they do their doctor
or dentist. Material for radio spot announcements, school and civic activities guidelines, and
speakers manuals, were also include. Commendations for the excellence of the project were
received in the form of a congratulatory resolution of the Ohio Senate and a letter from the
American Bar Association.
The group life insurance program, which had been in the planning phase for more than a year,
became operational and it prompted a flood of membership applications. More than 1,800
lawyers and their employees entered the plan, providing an unexpected benefit for the Ohio State
Bar Foundation—dividends were paid to members of the group plan by the John Hancock
Insurance Company, and it was suggested that the recipients of the dividends assign them to the
Foundation. Many lawyers responded favorably, thus providing a nest-egg to help fund the
Foundation‘s projects in helping improve knowledge of the law and the administration of justice.
1959 was a legislative year with all of the attendant opportunities—and frustration. The
election of the previous fall had included the Right-To-Work issue on the ballot, and it had
brought disaster to the Republican Party in Ohio. For the first time in ten years, the Democrats
organized the legislature. To establish rapport with the new legislators the Association sponsored
a breakfast for the members of the General Assembly, with the lawyer members of the legislature
acting as honorary hosts. Over 150 legislators attended the affair and it was adjudged a great
success.
Sections had regained favor by 1958, and one of the first to be organized was the Real
Property Section, with Walter J. Morgan of Cleveland as Chairman. The first accomplishment of
the group was the publication of a newsletter entitled, The Real Property Lawyer, edited by
Thomas J. McDermott of Mansfield.
Several amendments to the Association‘s Constitution were adopted in 1959, two of which
made important changes in the governing structure. Since 1947 a single vice president had been
elected annually, but in order to succeed to the presidency, other than by the death, disability or
removal of the President, the Vice President had to stand for election at the end of his one-year
term in the lower office. Thus, it was possible for a man to win the vice-presidency, spend a year
preparing for the top office, and then be defeated. The amendment eliminated that possibility and
provided specifically that the Vice President, on the expiration of his term, would automatically
succeed to the presidency. Another amendment gave the retiring President one additional year on
the executive committee.
The Client Security Fund Proposed
The Client Security Fund was a new and untried concept in 1958. When President Van Aken
suggested that the Association investigate the idea with a view to adopting it, reactions were
mixed. Some members of the Executive Committee felt that it was a poor idea because it
amounted to a tacit admission that lawyers generally were dishonest. Others felt that it would
show the public that the overwhelming majority of honest lawyers were serious about the
obligation of the legal profession to police itself and protect the public from the depredations of
the few scoundrels who found their way into its ranks. Two years later the Fund was established,
and it has been well received by the bar and the public.
***
The Association had one of the busiest years in its history in the General Assembly. Thirtyfive bills and resolutions were endorsed by the Association. The three most important measures
were the Uniform Commercial Code, the merit selection plan, and the judicial salary bill. The
highly technical nature of the Uniform Commercial Code, and the strong opposition to it from
the Ohio Bankers Association and other interest groups, necessitated hiring an additional staff
member to assist in handling it. The Association was fortunate to obtain the services of an able
and articulate young lawyer, Boris Auerbach, who was thoroughly familiar with the Uniform
Act. Boris worked closely with the Association‘s most dedicated advocate of the Code, Robert P.
Goldman of Cincinnati, to educate the General Assembly on the value of and necessity for this
complicated bill. It was generally agreed by veteran legislative observers that the presentation in
support of the Code before the House Judiciary Committee was the finest heard in many years.
Although Auerbach and Goldman worked hard the bill failed. Nevertheless, their educational
efforts paid off, because the measure finally passed in the 1961 session.
The Ohio Judicial Conference
Chief Justice Carl V. Weygandt joined with the President of the Association in issuing an
invitation to all judges in Ohio to attend a meeting in conjunction with the Association‘s 1958
convention in Cincinnati, for the purpose of organizing an Ohio Judicial Conference. Although
the judges of the appellate and trial courts had long maintained separate, state-wide
organizations, and a Judicial Council was in existence, the plain fact was that the judges of the
state had never had a combined organization through which they could speak on court reform,
judicial salaries, legislation on substantive and procedural law, and other matters affecting the
administration of justice. The response was enthusiastic and overwhelming. On May 22, 1959,
the first Ohio Judicial Conference was formally organized in a meeting attended by judges
representing all Ohio courts. A board of trustees was chosen with each level of courts in Ohio
represented. State Senator Gordon Renner of Cincinnati addressed the new group on the subject
of pending legislation of interest to the courts.
***
Financially, the Association prospered in 1958. Income from dues, advertising, interest, and
other sources produced $299,612.55. Expenses were $168,088.88, leaving $131,523.67 to carry
on the numerous activities of the state bar.
The Embarrassments of Office Illustrated
The two principal speakers at the 1958 Annual Convention in Cincinnati were Senator Karl
Mundt of South Dakota, and Clarence Manion, the former Dean of the University of Notre Dame
Law School. In addition to delivering a thought-provoking speech, Manion proved adept at
repartee. It was (and is) the custom to hold a cocktail party for Executive Committee members
and their wives, and the Association‘s guests, preceding the Friday night banquet at Association
conventions. When Dean Manion arrived at the party, he immediately noticed Thomas J.
Herbert, the Ohio Supreme Court Judge and former Governor of Ohio. Manion inquired of the
writer (who, as President of the Association, was hot) if in fact it was the former governor and
expressed the desire to meet him. The writer nervously explained that he (the writer) and the
Governor had once had a very sharp difference of opinion on a bill during the writer‘s legislative
career, and perhaps it would be better if someone else made the introduction. Manion insisted,
however, and the introduction was made—with some trepidation on the writer‘s part. Judge
Herbert acknowledged the introduction, and the author‘s fears were then realized when the Judge
identified him as the one who had ―cut his throat‖ when he was Governor. Manion leaned over,
peered intently at Judge Herbert‘s throat and said with a smile, ―My, but it has healed
beautifully.‖
***
President Van Aken‘s address contained a challenge: ―Not since the adoption of the
Constitution of 1851 has there been a comprehensive revision of the Ohio court system. In the
interval, we have created the juvenile court, the municipal court, the mayor‘s court, the police
court, and now the county court. Our Ohio court system should and must be reorganized. I
believe that a special committee of this Association consisting of both judges and lawyers should
be appointed to study the judicial system of this and other jurisdictions and make
recommendations thereon to the Council of Delegates. Such a committee might well consider
further implementation of the law relative to combining probate and common pleas courts in
smaller counties. Perhaps the establishment of one county court of general jurisdiction with
divisions for domestic relations, small claims, traffic and misdemeanors, juvenile and probate
matters, in addition to the usual type of cases generally heard by the common pleas court, would
be the answer in the larger counties. This court should be presided over by a judge clothed with
sufficient administrative authority to enable him to deal effectively with the causes of court
congestion and other problems affecting the administration of justice. Certainly such a system
would afford uniformity of rules and procedure as well as efficiency and economy of operation.‖
The challenge was one which would occupy the attention of the leaders of the Association for
almost a decade. Perseverance, skill and hard work, plus the cooperation of the Ohio legislature
finally brought about at least partial success in the form of the Modern Courts Amendment in
1968.
The Association‟s Emblem
In 1959, President Allan B. Diefenbach wondered about the symbolism of the Ohio State Bar
Association‘s emblem. He therefore researched the matter and reported his findings in his first
―President‘s Page‖ in the Ohio BAR. The emblem, it will be recalled, is a flaming torch with a
disc affixed. Within the disc is an open book symbolizing the law. Astride the book is the
blindfolded figure of Justice holding the Scale of Judgment in one hand and the Sword of
Enforcement in the other. Behind, and to one side of the figure of Justice, is that part of the Great
Seal of Ohio which depicts the sun rising over the hills of Ross County (as seen from Adena, the
home of Thomas Worthington). The perimeter of the disc contains the name of the Association
and the year 1880, the date of its founding. The torch itself symbolizes a call to action—the
action set forth in the purpose clause of the Constitution of the Association, namely, to advance
the science of jurisprudence, to promote reform in the law, and to facilitate the administration of
justice.
***
The first task facing President Deifenbach‘s administration was to complete the job of raising
funds for the construction of the Ohio Legal Center. Although individual, law firm, and
corporate donations had been generous, only 31% of the individual members of the Association
had contributed by the beginning of 1959, but by virtue of constant effort by many people, the
end of the year saw the task virtually completed.
Growing Pains
The growth of the Association continued. There were now thirty-nine committees and two
sections. Membership on the individual committees was increasing, and committee rosters of
thirty-four or more were not uncommon. Among the new committees was one on Judicial
Reorganization, which was established in response to the call contained in the President‘s
address of the preceding May. In his first report, chairman Earl F. Morris stated that the initial
task of the committee would be to study all of the literature on the subject of judicial reform and
review the work accomplished in other states.
With the growth of the lawyer population in Ohio, the size of the Council of Delegates had
increased proportionately, as had the work product of the various committees of the Association,,
with the result that many matters received only cursory attention on their way to introduction in
the General Assembly as part of the Association‘s legislative program.
This problem had surfaced several years previously, when a bill had been recommended by
the Association‘s Criminal Law Committee to provide for an automatic review in the Supreme
Court in any case in which the death penalty had been imposed. The measure sailed through the
Council of Delegates with little discussion, and the Executive Committee routinely approved it
for presentation to the General Assembly. A sponsor was obtained, the bill was introduced and,
in due course, a hearing was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was at this point that
Senator Fred L. Hoffman quietly—and quite correctly—suggested that the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court was fixed by the Ohio Constitution and could not be enlarged, decreased, or
modified by an act of the legislature. The bill was accordingly killed and given a quiet funeral. It
was embarrassing—the best legal brains in Ohio had overlooked the obvious.
To avoid a repetition of that fiasco, and to improve the workings of the Council of Delegates,
a new procedure for Council Meetings was developed. Henceforth, the Council would be divided
into such number of committees as might be necessary to study the bills presented to the Council
for action. These committees would meet the week before the main council session, and would
thoroughly analyze and discuss each proposal—even to the extent of suggesting amendments.
The chairman of each committee would then present to the Council the bills assigned to is group,
together with the group‘s recommendation. The chairman of the State Bar Committee in which
the measure had originated would also be present at the Council meeting to assist in the
presentation. The result of this innovation was the Association bills were far more polished and
free of defect when they reached the legislature.
***
An interesting event took place at the Granville Inn in Granville, Ohio on November 1,
1959—a luncheon to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Coshocton law firm of Pomerene,
Burns & Milligan. The firm was founded in 1859 by Julius C. Pomerene, grandfather of the
current senior partner, Warner M. Pomerene. Among the guests participating in the event were
Senator John W. Bricker, Howard L. Bevis, Chief Justice Carl V. Weygandt, Judge Robert B.
Putnam of the Court of Appeals, and Matthew J. Smith, Vice President of the State Bar.
***
The year ended with a full-page Christmas greeting in the Ohio BAR from the Association
staff, which now included ten members: Bonnie Gay; Betty Parlette Glassburn; Anne Jonas;
Irene Snowden; Margaret Swatik; Sharon Knight Wallace; Boris Auerbach, Phillip K. Folk; J
Thurman Hively, Jr.; and, of course, Joseph B. Miller.
The UCC and the Client security Fund Move Forward
Two pending projects occupied the attention of the Association as the new year opened. The
Uniform Commercial Code had failed of passage in the 103rd General Assembly, but the
Association was determined to press forward. The Association‘s Banking and Commercial Law
Committee, encouraged by the fact that the bill had passed the House and had been unanimously
endorsed by the Senate Judiciary Committee before its demise, continued studying and refining
the measure. Certain minor, non-substantive changes were made. Support came from the Ohio
Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored meetings in eight different cities for the purpose of
explaining the Code. The Ohio Bankers Association, the bete noire of the UCC in previous
legislative sessions, was courted with a view to removing the bankers‘ objections. All association
members were urged to contact their legislators and request their support.
The creation of client security funds was being advocated by the American Bar Association,
and although it had been proposed in president Van Aken‘s administration, objections continued
to be raised in the Ohio State Bar association. The Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct
Committee designated William F. Hecker of Cleveland, Matt Kolb of Toledo, and Paul A. Weick
of Akron, to study the matter. Weick, son of former President Paul C. Weick, was another
example of son following father in Association work. The group made an exhaustive study of the
subject of indemnification against loss to the public as a result of lawyer defalcation. It was
found that two states, Vermont and Oregon, had created such a fund in 1958, and that forty states
were studying it. Newspapers generally applauded bar associations when they created such
funds. Presentations to district meetings around Ohio on the subject usually elicited favorable
comments. Thus, the weight of opinion clearly favored indemnification, and a favorable
recommendation of the plan was presented to the Council of Delegates by the Legal Ethics and
Professional Conduct Committee.
Attacking the Problem of Unauthorized Practice
The addition of Phillip K. Folk to the staff, and his subsequent assignment to the field of
unauthorized practice, gave a new thrust to the work of the Association. Previously unauthorized
practice was attacked, if at all, by the local bar association at the place of occurrence. The Ohio
State Bar Association had lent encouragement but seldom filed the lawsuits. Now, with Merritt
W. Green of Toledo as Chairman and Phillip K. Folk as Counsel, the Unauthorized Practice
Committee assumed a more aggressive role.
The Committee filed suit against the Huntington National Bank of Columbus, seeking an
injunction to restrain it and its officers, agents and employees from practicing law. The petition
alleged that the defendant solicited law business by advertising and by other means, and that it
offered legal advice on tax, trust, and estate matters. The Franklin County Common Pleas Court
dismissed the petition, but an appeal was taken and the Court of Appeals reversed. The bank
appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and in an opinion by Chief Justice Kingsley A. Taft, the
judgment of the Court of Appeals was modified and affirmed. The Supreme Court held that a
bank or trust company which provides specific legal information in relation to the specific facts
of a person‘s estate for the purpose of obtaining a more beneficial estate condition in relation to
tax and other legal consequences of death, is giving legal advice. A bank was not practicing law,
said the Court, by merely discussing with counsel of a customer or prospective customer of the
bank, legal problems involved in the planning or administration of the client-customer‘s estate.
The case was a great victory for the Ohio State Bar Association, and for its Unauthorized
Practice of Law Committee Chairman, Merritt W. Green, and for the lawyers who prepared and
argued the case, Robert e. Albright, James C. Justice and Phillip K. Folk.
A case against Battelle Memorial Institute for its incursions into patent law practice took a
different course. Actually, There were two cases—Battelle filed a declaratory judgment action to
test is right to perform the services it was rendering, and the Ohio State Bar Association‘s
Committee sued to enjoin the alleged unauthorized practice by Battelle. The cases were
consolidated, and the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held for the bar committee on the
ground that the preparation of patent applications, assignments, contracts and license agreements
was the practice of law. The decision was reversed on appeal, however, and the Supreme Court
dismissed an appeal as of right on the ground that no debatable constitutional question was
involved.
***
The Association committee meetings in march, 1960 took on a new format. There were now
forty-five committees, and forty of them gathered at the Deshler-Hilton Hotel. One which met at
the group session and could report substantial progress was the new Committee on Judicial
Reorganization. Its subcommittees had been at work and presented reports which had been
approved by the whole committee. One proposal was for a unified trial court at the county level,
with whatever divisions might be deemed necessary. In any county with more than one judge, a
chief judge with plenary powers would be chosen. Another proposal was to grant broad rulemaking power to the Supreme Court. Other matters under consideration were administrative
supervision, compulsory retirement for elderly judges, and remedies for court congestion.
***
While plans for the new Ohio Legal Center were moving forward, a related construction
project was nearing completion, and on April 23, 1960 the new College of Law building at the
Ohio State University was dedicated. The ceremony was the central feature of a three-day
convocation which included the Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference, and annual meeting of The
Ohio State University College of Law Alumni association, the Circuit Conference of the
American Law Student Association, and the Order of the Coif initiation. The building was
presented by Ohio State President Novice G. Fawcett to Judge Robert N. Gorman, Chairman of
the University‘s Board of Trustees. Among the prominent guests were: Justice Potter Steward of
the United States Supreme Court; Whitney North Seymour, American Bar Association PresidentElect; Charles S. Rhyne, immediate Past president of the American Bar Association; and Dean
Erwin Griswold of Harvard Law School. The principal speaker was Earl Warren, Chief Justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Perry Mason at the Bar
The climax of each administration in the Ohio State Bar Association is the Annual Meeting,
and President Diefenbach‘s administration was no exception. The Convention was held at the
Sheraton Hotel on Cleveland‘s Public Square, and it had a little bit of everything.
For excitement, there was a three-man race for the vice Presidency. For entertainment,
television‘s fabled lawyer, Perry Mason a.k.a. Raymond Burr, addressed a sellout crowd at the
annual banquet. For education, there were institutes on estate planning, personal injury trial
practice, and the Uniform Commercial Code. For edification, there was the annual address of
President Diefenbach, plus a speech by Chief Justice John R. Dethmers of the Supreme Court of
Michigan. And for annoyance, there was a lawsuit testing the right of the Association to require
the payment of a convention registration fee as a condition precedent to the privilege of voting in
the election of officers.
It is sometimes hard to stimulate interest in conventions of the Ohio State Bar Association
held in Cleveland. The writer was the general chairman of the 1960 convention Planning
Committee. Success had not crowned our efforts to obtain a big-name speaker for the banquet
and, with no such name to advertise, advance registrations lagged. As April neared, the writer‘s
secretary suggested Raymond Burr as a possibility, and a call was placed forthwith to his home
in Hollywood. Burr‘s secretary called him to the telephone, the invitation was presented, and was
promptly and graciously accepted. The publicity immediately went out and registrations soared.
One lawyer, who had had no intention of attending the meeting, abruptly changed his plans when
his wife learned the Perry Mason would be there. Eleven hundred persons registered for the
convention, and the banquet guests filled the large ballroom and an adjoining dining room to
overflowing.
***
The election was a hard-fought battle with extensive campaigning by the backers of the three
candidates. Lawrence Burns of Coshocton, John C. Johnston, Jr. of Wooster, and Jack Pickrel of
Dayton, contested for the office of Vice President, and Johnston emerged the winner. The
aforementioned lawsuit testing the requirement for paying a registration fee necessitated the
appearance of representatives of the Association in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga
County at the height of the Convention. A temporary order was issued permitting the plaintiff to
cast a ballot which would be impounded until the result of the election could be ascertained, with
the provisio that if the ballot would change the result the matter would be reopened by the Court
for final determination. The election did not turn on one ballot, and nothing more was heard of
the lawsuit.
Chief Justice Dethmers addressed the second meeting of the Ohio Judicial Conference. The
Conference adopted a constitution, selected Judge Lehr Fess of the Court of appeals as its
President, and launched on a course of great usefulness to the people.
The Ohio Legal Center in Sight
In his address, president Diefenbach could recount a number of important accomplishments.
The money needed to match George Ritter‘s gift of $150,000 to build the Ohio Legal Center had
been raised, and architect‘s renderings for the Center were in the final stages of completion.
The Client‘s Security Fund had been established. The amendment to the by-laws of the
Council of Delegates would insure a more thorough study of legislative proposals. Looking
ahead, Diefenbach sounded the call, ―We must recruit men of outstanding ability, who will give
of their time and energy to the service of their profession. This is one of the great challenges of
the future.‖ The challenge remains before us all.
The Ground is Broken
The Presidency of Matthew J. Smith of New Philadelphia was the successful culmination of
three projects for which the members of the Ohio State Bar Association had labored long and
diligently.
First, ground was broken for the Ohio Legal Center. After painstaking effort (and occasional
frustration) during the terms of four presidents, which involved negotiating with the University,
seeing to the acquisition of the land, raising the necessary funds, and consulting with the
architects and building contractors, the light was showing brightly at the end of the tunnel. The
ground breaking ceremony was a gala affair with president Phillip J. Ebeling of the Ohio State
Bar Foundation presiding. It was held in conjunction with the fall committee meetings on
September 10, 1960, thus insuring a large attendance. Following the luncheon for committee
members, bus transportation was provided to the site. The new building was being constructed
on land owned by The Ohio State University, and the necessary funds for the project were being
contributed by the Foundation.
This arrangement necessitated a tri-partite agreement between the University, the Foundation,
and the Ohio State Bar Association. Appropriately enough, each of those groups was represented
on the panel of speakers—Ebeling for the Foundation, President Matthew J. Smith for the
Association, and Dean Frank R. Strong for the University. Other speakers were Fred A. Smith,
Chairman of the Association‘s Building Committee, and George W. Ritter, one of the prime
movers behind the project, and its principal benefactor.
The Clients‟ Security Fund begins Operation
Another important but controversial activity which was inaugurated in 1961 was the Client‘s
Security Fund. The proposal had first been submitted in 1959 to the Legal Ethics and
Professional Conduct Committee, whose chairman then was the same Matthew J. Smith. His
committee did its work well, and the fund was established with $10,000 allocated to it by the
Executive Committee. The comprehensive rules for the governance of the Clients‘ Security Fund
Committee, the control of the fund‘s assets, and the filing and processing of claims, were the first
such rules to be adopted in the nation.
The UCC is Adopted
The third important accomplishment of President Smith‘s term was the successful
shepherding of the Uniform Commercial Code through the legislature. The measure had been
strongly opposed by the Ohio Bankers Association in two prior legislative sessions. In his
presidential address, Smith rightly and graciously ascribed credit to Robert P. Goldman of
Cincinnati, and to Joseph B. Miller and Boris Auerbach of the Association staff, for their
painstaking efforts in bringing about passage of the bill. Auerbach had been hired in 1958
specifically for this assignment. He was one of the best-informed men in the country on the
subject of the Code, and this enabled him to counter quickly and cogently the numerous
objections raised by opponents of the measure.
In his account of his stewardship of the Association, President Smith stated, ―If we had an
award to make for the outstanding service rendered this year to the public of Ohio by a member
of our Association, I believe we would conclude that it should go to Bob Goldman for the
tremendous contribution of his time, effort and ability over a period of several years, which has
contributed so greatly to bringing about the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code.‖ Such
an award—the Ohio Bar Medal—was established several years later, and the same Robert P.
Goldman was in the first group of recipients.
***
Progress was being made on other fronts. After two years of work the Judicial Reorganization
committee, headed by past President Earl f. Morris of Columbus, presented its comprehensive
plan for the reorganization, unification and modernization of Ohio‘s court system to the Council
of Delegates. The report called for a constitutional amendment. The life of the Judicial
Reorganization Committee was extended, and it was directed to continue work on the proposed
amendment with a view to having the General Assembly place the issue in the ballot for vote of
the people.
When President John C. Johnston, Jr., of Wooster, passed the gavel along to Lawrence Burns,
Jr., of Coshocton, on July 1, 1962, the retiring leader could truthfully say that his was a year of
culmination.
The Ohio Legal Center Institute
The first great event of the year took place on July 17, 1961, when the Ohio Legal Center
(later the Ohio Legal Center Institute), a non-profit corporation, was organized and began
operations. The concept of an Ohio Legal Center, as set forth in the prospectus presented by the
Ohio State Bar Foundation to the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University, was to join the
academic community and the legal profession in a common effort to improve the administration
of justice. The new corporation embodied the concept of common effort. It consisted of three
members: the Ohio State Bar Association; the Ohio State Bar Foundation; and The Ohio State
University. Its purposes articulated the major functions of a Law Center. The creation of the
corporation in 1961 had special significance in that it represented the first time that a specific
entity existed in Ohio with specific responsibility in matters of continuing legal education and
legal research.
The new organization was, however, heir to a substantial tradition of continuing legal
education activities provided by the Ohio State Bar Association and by the University. The
Association had long maintained a standing committee on continuing legal education, ably
chaired by the late Charles M. Zelkowitz of Mount Vernon, which prepared and offered
programs and encouraged their development by others. Even hampered, as it was, by the lack of
staff, the Committee was able to mount an ongoing service of great value to the bar. Mr.
Zelkowitz was named to the corporation‘s Board of Trustees and served with unparalleled
commitment to the concept of continuing legal education, until ill health forced his retirement in
1972.
The creation of the new corporation was also in conformity with a national trend. In 1958, the
Joint Committee on Continuing Legal Education of the American law Institute and the American
Bar Association convened the National Conference on the Continuing Education of the Bar at
Arden House, Harriman, New York. The final statement issued by the Conference included the
conclusion that, ―In the last analysis, the responsibility for this entire program in each state rests
with the organized bar of the state …‖
Although the name was not officially changed until 1965, the corporation became operative as
the Ohio Legal Center Institute on December 1, 1961, with David J. Young as its first Director.
Ohio thus became the fourteenth state to have a professional administrator in the filed of
continuing legal education.
In 1961, the General Assembly enacted the Uniform Commercial Code, to be effective July 1,
1962, and the UCC became the Institute‘s first CLE effort. Prior to the effective date of the new
law, four presentations of a two and one-half-day course were made and seven presentations of a
one-day course were also given. Continuing legal education ties were durable—the local
chairman for the longer course on the UCC in Akron was Sam D. Bartlo, who currently serves as
Chairman of the Institute‘s Board of Trustees.
1,694 lawyers were in attendance at the eleven sessions of the UCC conferences. The size of
the audience was a demonstration of a basic principle in continuing legal education, which is that
a major change in the law generates a high level of interest in CLE coverage of that change. But
the response raised undue optimism. It was an objective of the Institute to be self-sustaining—to
realize from tuition fees enough money to fund the entirety of the operation—and the success of
the initial effort seemed to promise early realization of the financial objective. Unfortunately, it
was not to be. During the balance of 1962, five presentations of four conferences were given
with a total participation of 770 persons. With the limited resources available to the Foundation,
it fell to the Association to provide direct financial assistance to the work of the Institute. The
Association has since periodically underwritten operations to guarantee the continued
functioning of the Institute. In recent years, the number of major law revisions has been such that
the objective of self-sustaining status has been achieved.
In 1963 David J. Young returned to the practice of law and was succeeded by James L. Young
who currently serves as Director of the Institute. The staff has grown from its one person
beginning to a total of nine, and the Institute‘s activities have grown proportionately. It can justly
be said that, under James L. Young, the Ohio Legal Center Institute provides the finest
continuing legal education program in the nation.
Although the original purposes of the corporation included both research and continuing legal
education, CLE has dominated. As difficult as it is for CLE to be financially self-sustaining, it is
infinitely more difficult to conduct research on the same basis. Despite the difficulty, there have
been two major contributions by the Institute in the research area.
In 1964, the Institute conducted a survey among the members of the bar relative to a projected
utilization of electronic retrieval of case law, specifically, the unique concept of search against
full text. The study and subsequent consideration eventually produced OBAR (Ohio Bar
Automated Research) which in turn became LEXIS, now being marketed nationally by Mead
Data Central Corporation.
In another significant development, the Institute worked with the Honorable James L.
McCrystal, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, in the application of videotape to
court proceedings. A demonstration of the use of videotape as a medium for medical depositions
was included in the 1971 Trial Techniques Conference given by the Institute. The use of the
medium was extended by Judge McCrystal to the pre-recording of all testimony in the trial on
videotape with no live appearances by witnesses before the trier of the fact. In Erie County, the
Court maintains two dockets, a PRVTT docket in addition to the regular docket, and it has
compiled an unequalled record in the disposition of cases. In this unique system, the Bar
maintains a videotape recording studio, as do some law firms.
In 1974, the Ohio State Bar Foundation secured the services of a Director of Research,
Thomas R. Swisher, who now carries-out research projects as envisioned when the Center was
created.
Each of the three members of the corporation—The Ohio State University, the Ohio State Bar
Association, and the Ohio State Bar Foundation—provides three trustees to serve on the
Institute‘s Board. The Institute has profited greatly from the dedicated service of this leaders
from the field of legal education and from the practicing profession and organized bar.
The New Ohio Legal Center
The second great event of President John Johnston‘s administration was one of the most
important occurrences in the history of the Ohio State Bar Association. On October 28, 1961,
three months ahead of schedule, the Association‘s headquarters were moved to the new Ohio
Legal Center at 33 West Eleventh Avenue, in Columbus.
The long-awaited event marked the end of a tortuous road, which began in the suitcase and
filing boxes of the first secretary, J. T. Holmes of Columbus, meandered through the offices and
homes of his successors, halted awhile in a law office in the Hartman Building on State Street in
Columbus, entered the State House in the trunk of John L. W. Henney, and abided there at the
sufferance of the Supreme Court until that momentous October morning in 1961.
In the words of President Johnston, ―As a building, the Center is a superbly balanced
combination of dignity, function and beauty. It represents an investment by the Ohio State Bar
Association, its Foundation and The Ohio State University of more than three quarters of a
million dollars. It stands today because the lawyers and judges of Ohio have made a commitment
to the future of our profession.‖
The L-shaped structure consists of three floors and a basement storage area, located on a
beautifully landscaped site augmented by flowering trees and a reflecting pool in a formal
garden. A feature of the entrance wall is a stone block taken from the wreckage of Gray‘s Inn in
London following its destruction by German bombs in World War II. The entrance foyer
contains a wall tablet listing the names of all donors to the building fund. A tastefully decorated
lounge and reception area on the first floor contains a series of memorial plaques. The first floor
is completed by the George Rittter Library, a large board room given in honor of Howard L.
Barkdull by his firm, Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, a conference room donated by the Dayton
law firm of Pickrel, Schaeffer and Ebeling in memory of Virgil Schaeffer, plus offices, kitchen,
and service areas.
The second floor is occupied by the Ohio State Bar Association offices and equipment rooms.
Of particular interest to past Presidents, who were accustomed to using a corner of one of the
battered desks in the old quarters in the State House annex as their working space, is the spacious
luxuriously furnished president‘s office. This unit was funded by the gifts of President Johnston
and all of his living predecessors.
The third floor contains the offices and equipment of the Ohio Legal Center Institute, and also
the offices of the Ohio State Bar Foundation.
The official dedication took place on June 22, 1962. Befitting the importance of the occasion,
the ceremonies consumed the greater part of the day. Fred A. Smith of Toledo presided as
President of the Ohio State Bar Association Foundation. The first speaker was Russell D. Niles,
Dean of the New York University School of Law, who spoke on, ―Professor and Practitioner—
An Unlimited Partnership.‖ He was followed by Dean Erwin N. Griswold of the Law School of
Harvard University, whose subject was, ―Facing the Problems of Legal Research and Law
Development.‖
A luncheon was held at the Ohio Union, at which President Johnston presided. The actual
dedication followed at 2:00 p.m. when Dena Frank R. Strong of the College of Law of The Ohio
State University presented the Legal Center Building to Alan B. Loop of Toledo, representing
the University Board of Trustees, and to Presidents Johnston and Smith, each of whom spoke
briefly. Nicholas L. Macaskie, Master of the Library of Gray‘s Inn, London, England, presented
the stone medallion which graces the wall near the entrance of the Legal Center.
George W. Ritter, the principal benefactor and long-time advocate of the construction of a
legal research center, delivered the dedicatory address. At the time, George Ritter was only a
week away from his seventy-sixth birthday. He had been active in the work of the Ohio State Bar
Association since 1908, and was then in semi-retirement, but his address clearly established that
he was intimately familiar with the problems facing the profession. He sounded the call for
continuing legal education, and made specific recommendations for eliminating the law‘s delay.
Said Ritter, ―I propose that the various times allowed for service of summons and filing of
pleadings be shortened. I propose that undefined defenses, such as general denials, be eliminated.
I propose that uncontroversial facts be developed by a Master under the direction of the court
prior to trial …‖ (All of Ritter‘s suggestions were made long before the Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure became effective.) George W. Ritter was indeed a remarkable man.
The dedication concluded with a reception in the garden of the Legal Center. A brave new era
for the Ohio State Bar Association had begun under most auspicious circumstances.
CHAPTER TEN
REVOLUTIONS IN THE LAW
“The resolution [HJR 42, the Modern Courts Amendment] grants to the Supreme
Court „general superintendence‟ over all the courts of the state … [and] also
specifically confers on the Chief Justice the power to assign … judges to sit
temporarily on other courts … The purpose of these provisions is to institute more
efficient utilization of judicial manpower …
“It is generally recognized that our statutory code of practice and procedure is
overcomplicated and outmoded, and it is very difficult to guide needed changes
through the legislature. Under the resolution, the Supreme Court will make the
rules of procedure …”
William G. Harrington
***
The Lawyers’ Image
Nostalgia was in the air when the first district meeting of the administration of President
Lawrence Burns took place on July 18, 1962. The site was Ohio‘s great Lake Erie resort, Cedar
Point, which had been the perennial gathering place of the Buckeye barristers for a quarter of a
century, until 1934. The Erie County Bar Association hosted the meeting, which was devoted to
various phases of bar public relations.
James I. Smith had joined the staff as Public Relations Director, and one of the innovations in
the Ohio BAR during this period was a column entitled, ―Obie Says.‖ Aimed chiefly at
improving the public relations of the legal profession, it contained many worthwhile suggestions
to lawyers for improving their image.
One such page recalled that the three classic professions were law, medicine and the ministry,
and noted that each had four requisites in common, namely a special body of learning, a code of
ethics, an exclusive selection system, and a license granted by the state. This exclusive status
disappeared after World War II. Noting that the Mafia and the Communist Party possessed the
first three qualifications, and were gradually gaining the fourth through the apathy of the
American people, the article stressed the fact that lawyers could no longer rely on their heritage
to place them in a position of leadership in the community. It was pointed out that the Ohio
Revised Code then listed nine different areas of human endeavor which required licenses and
used the words ―professional‖ or ―unprofessional‖ in their respective licensing laws: accounting;
architecture; barbering; dentistry; embalming; undertaking‘ engineering; pawnbrokering‘ and
medicine. In addition, real estate brokers and salesmen, and insurance agents, required state
permits to operate. Licensees in each of these categories were striving to improve their callings,
and were arrogating to them the title, ―profession.‖
All of this calls to mind a story which circulated around Columbus some years ago. A lobbyist
was entertaining a group of State Senators at lunch at the Columbus Athletic Club. Two other
lobbyists were seated at an adjoining table. The legislators frequently and scrup8ulously
addressed each other as ―Senator,‖ which prompted one lobbyist at the nearby table to remark to
his friend, ―When I hear those politicians calling each other ‗Senator‘ it reminds me of a bunch
of chiropractors calling each other ‗Doctor‘.‖
The point of Smith‘s article, and one which deserves emphasis today, is summed up in the
following paragraph:
―It is up to the individual lawyer to prove by actions that the legal profession has not stepped
backwards, but instead has grown with the times into a profession of men and women quite
capable of conquering the over-massing system of complex laws and unique problems.‖
***
Another recent addition to the staff of the Ohio State Bar Association had been Fred D.
Puckett of Delaware. He was assigned to the field of research, with specific duties to aid
Association committees in preparing and drafting bills for eventual presentation to the General
Assembly. Puckett developed a system of indexing cases in the Supreme Court so that citations
to those cases would be readily available to Association members before the report of the case
would be published. In addition, the briefs of counsel in cases decided in the Supreme Court
were not collected, indexed and filed at the Legal Center, and were available to members on a
loan basis.
The Ohio Judicial Conference was not fully organized and operational. It, too, was active in
the area of education. A Jury Instruction Committee of the Conference, headed by Judge Robert
L. McBride of Dayton and Judge Eugene R. McNeill of Van Wert, produced a volume entitled
Standard Criminal Instructions. It was an extremely useful production. Twenty-two judges and
three law professors shared in the preparation of the volume, and the charges in it were used in
actual trials with few appeals and no reversals.
The Judicial Conference was active on another front. It secured the backing of the Judicial
Administration and Legal Reform Committee for a bill to authorize reimbursement from the
public treasurer to the judges for their expenses incurred in attendance at executive and standing
committee meetings of the Conference.
The Status of the Legal Profession
The American Bar Foundation published some statistics of interest to Ohio Lawyers. In 1961,
there were 15,470 attorneys in Ohio, making Ohio fourth largest in the United States in lawyer
population. Women accounted for only 409 of the total. Lawyers in the age bracket thirty-seven
to forty-six numbered 3,466, the most numerous of any age group. Moreover, Buckeye State
lawyers were a hardy lot—seventy-eight of them were over eighty-six years of age and still
practicing. 87.4% of Ohio lawyers attended college, and 62.4% earned undergraduate degrees.
The number of lawyers practicing in rural areas of Ohio was 5,022, and the rest were in cities of
over 50,000 population. There was one attorney for every 627 persons, which was a drop from a
high of one attorney for every 888 persons forty years before.
President John C. Johnston, Jr. had appointed a Committee on the Status of the Legal
Profession. The Committee had broad authority to investigate all phases of the profession and
make recommendations. W. Walker Lewis, Jr. of Dayton submitted a report which suggested
that lawyers might be pricing themselves out of the market. As a result of what they termed high
fees, people were going outside the legal profession for advice, or else not seeking advice at all.
The Committee stressed the need for increased efficiency in the practice of law. Specialization
had arrived, in the view of the Committee, and it was incumbent upon the bar to face up to it.
Another recommendation called for the establishment of an effective system of legal
apprenticeships and practical training for new lawyers. Also, the report asserted that the Canons
of Ethics and the discipline of wayward lawyers should receive an increased share of Association
funds to improve the image of the profession.
***
With the close of 1962, two members of the staff resigned—Phillip K. Folk left to enter the
practice of law, and James I. Smith III accepted the position of Executive Director of the
Allegheny County Bar Association in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Folk had played an important
role in the fund raising for the Legal Center, and was counsel to the Unauthorized Practice
Committee. Smith had been editor of the Ohio Lawyer and the LAB Bulletin, and had originated
and edited the ―You and the Law‖ newspaper series.
William C. Moore of Columbus was appointed Assistant Secretary and Public Relations
Director to replace Smith. Moore had recently completed a graduate degree in public relations at
The Ohio State University and worked for The Associated Press.
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends …”
In the spring of 1963 past President C. Kenneth Clark of Youngstown chaired a two-day Ohio
Citizens Conference on Judicial Selection and Tenure. Co-sponsors of the meeting were the
American Judicature Society and the Joint Committee for the Effective Administration of
Justice. A series of seminars with guest speakers from states that had either adopted, or were
planning some type of judicial reform was held. Ohioans who addressed the meeting were
former Supreme Court Judge James F. Bell of London, Attorney General William B. Saxbe, and
Association President Lawrence Burns. Glenn R. Winters, Executive Director of the American
Judicature Society, reported to the Conference on the status of judicial selection and tenure
throughout the United States. The Conference concluded: that the resolution then pending in the
General Assembly for the limited appointive system for the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals should be approved for presentation to the voters by that body; that a strong citizens
committee to support the plan should be organized; and that a broad educational campaign to
familiarize the electors of the state with the plan should be launched. Like all previous efforts to
secure an appointive judiciary, the plan was doomed to failure.
***
That spring, also, the Committee on International Law and Development of World Peace
Through Law organized a tour for foreign students studying in Ohio colleges and universities.
Nineteen students, representing six schools and sixteen foreign countries, spent two days in
Columbus visiting state and city government offices, the courts, and a law office. President Leon
P. Loechler of the Columbus Bar Association arranged for the visitors to be housed in the homes
of local lawyers. They were greeted at the City Hall by Mayor W. Ralston Westlake. Chief
Justice Kingsley A. Taft gave them a guided tour of the Supreme Court. Next, they visited a
session of the Ohio Senate, where they were welcomed by Lieutenant Governor John W. Brown.
Committee members served as guides for the tour, which was fully covered by television and
press. In light of the current difficulties in Iran, a letter from an Iranian graduate engineering
student, who participated in the activity, is worth noting. The student, Reza Razani, wrote, ―In
our ever-shrinking world where the fate of the nations are so closely inter-dependent, any step
that brings understanding and friendship among us will strengthen more our ties and make the
world a better, happier and safer place to live in.‖
***
May 1963 brought the Annual Meeting in Columbus. Among the many Ohioans who
addressed the Convention was Russell C. Price of Upper Sandusky, who had been a member of
the Executive Committee of the Association when the Client Security Fund was first proposed in
1958. Price described the establishment and operation of the Fund. In 1960, $10,000 was
appropriated to finance the venture; by 1963 there was $43,500 in the Fund and six claims
totaling $19,058.99 had been presented, which arose from defalcations by two lawyers. Price
made the point that at the time it was costing $1 per member for the Association to finance the
Fund. In Arizona, the cost was $10 per member, in Philadelphia it was $3, and in England it was
the equivalent of $28. Price suggested that the time was approaching when it would be necessary
to assign a staff lawyer to the Fund to conduct investigations.
In his address to the Annual Meeting, President Lawrence Burns summarized the activities of
the Association which were designed: to improve the skills and competence of Ohio lawyers; to
curb the unauthorized practice of law; to strengthen disciplinary procedures; and to secure
adoption of a constitutional amendment providing for judicial merit selection and tenure.
***
In accordance with the custom of the time, the Ohio Judicial Conference held its annual
session in conjunction with the Ohio State Bar Association‘s Convention. The Conference was
only four years old, but there was a movement afoot to disband it. One of the speakers was Chief
Justice Kingsley a. Taft of the Ohio Supreme Court, who had addressed the organizational
meeting of the Conference in Cincinnati in 1959, and thereafter had maintained a keen interest in
the Conference. He addressed himself to the question, ―Shall we have an Ohio Judicial
Conference?‖ Although the effort to terminate the Conference had by then been sidetracked, the
Chief Justice devoted the major portion of his address to the benefits to be derived by the judges
themselves and the court system in general from the work of the Ohio Judicial Conference. The
opposition to the Conference stemmed from the supporters of the Ohio Judicial Council who
complained that the Conference was duplicating its efforts. The fact was that only six judges
were members of the Judicial Council, whereas every judge in Ohio could belong to the
Conference if he wished. Taft urged all judges to give their time and efforts to the work of the
Conference, and predicted that if they did so the resulting product would undoubtedly improve
the administration of justice in Ohio.
***
During the latter part of President Burns‘ term, two new members were added to the
Association staff. Martin G. Hegele of Columbus a retired major in the Ohio Highway Patrol,
was hired as an investigator to work on grievance matters. John Welch of Columbus joined the
staff as an attorney, with the duty to assist the Committees on Unauthorized Practice of Law and
Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct. Welch had practiced law in Columbus, and had served as
an assistant Attorney General.
The Crisis in Legal Education
It has been the goal of each man who become President of the Ohio State Bar Association to
leave his imprint upon the Association by developing some new program, or completing some
original project. The success of Erle H. Bridgewater‘s term in 1963-1964 was assured when he
came up with the novel idea of appointing each member of the Association to a special
membership committee, with instructions to go out and procure new members. The success of
the idea is clearly documented in the Ohio BAR, where lists of applicants in ever increasing
numbers appeared weekly.
The 1950‘s and the 1960‘s were memorable for spectacular advances in space science. The
launching of the Russian Sputnik signaled the start of a technology race between the United
States and the Soviet Union, and with it came a huge demand for skilled engineers and scientists.
The federal government supplied seemingly limitless sums in the form of grants to the nation‘s
institutions of higher learning for scientific and technological scholarships. The result was
predictable—America‘s brightest students, lured by free educational opportunities and the
excitement of discovering the new frontiers of the space age, flocked to the scientific schools.
Still other talented students, mindful of lucrative rewards in the field of medicine, stormed the
admissions offices of the medical schools.
With these developments, other academic areas had to be losers, and the law was among
them. Although applications for admission to the colleges of law were showing a slight increase,
the quality of the applicants was not on a par with that of the applicants to the engineering and
medical schools. As this was confirmed by the deans of various law schools, it became apparent
that concerted action must be taken by the organized bar if the profession was to maintain its
high standards and traditional position of leadership.
President Bridgewater responded quickly in behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association, by
appointing a Scholarship Committee authorized to chart its own course on the subject and report
its findings and recommendations to the Executive Committee. Taking what appeared to be a
revolutionary step at the time, Bridgewater designated two distinguished laymen as members—
President Vernon R. Alden of Ohio University, and Russell H. Rupp, principal of Shaker Heights
High School. The selection of these two men was particularly appropriate because it was
apparent from the start that the main thrust of the committee‘s effort would have to be directed to
the young people of high school and college age. Alden had attracted national attention with his
innovative ideas, and Rupp had served nearly thirty years as head of a high school whose
graduates mostly went on to college—a substantial number of them with National Merit
Scholarship Awards in hand.
The Scholarship Committee went quickly to work, and it was immediately apparent that it
faced an Herculean task requiring the expenditure of a substantial time, energy and money. The
committee‘s first report was presented to President Bridgewater at the annual meeting, and
recommended that an extensive program be inaugurated to provide direct contact by the bench
and bar with high school students. It also suggested the establishment by the state bar of a
scholarship fund. The committee was directed to continue its work.
The Modern Courts Committee
From the beginning, various committees of the Association had been concerned with ways
and means of improving the administration of justice in Ohio, and in 1963 two such committees
were active—one was interested principally in merit selection, the other was seeking to install
modern techniques in the courts. Clearly, their jurisdiction overlapped and, recognizing this, the
Executive Committee directed that a new group, to be known as the Modern Courts Committee,
should take over the functions of both committees and strive for a thorough revision of the
judicial article of Ohio‘s Constitution. $15,000 was allocated to the committee to be used to
promote and publicize the proposed judicial article which it would develop.
***
Today, one of the gravest concerns of the medical and legal professions is the high costs of
malpractice insurance. One of the best indications of the foresight of Erle Bridgewater‘s
administration is that ten years before the crisis developed, a committee was appointed by him to
study the problem.
For many years it had been the custom to convene the various committees of the Association
in Columbus twice a year, but the deteriorating downtown hotel situation in the capital city
presented increasing problems for housing and feeding the committee members. In February
1964 a novel approach to the problem was tried: one-half of the committees met on February 21
and 22 and the other half met one week later. In this way, all committee members were assured
of first class accommodations.
Legislative Know-How Demonstrated
The 85th annual meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association opened on May 19, 1965 at the
Netherland Plaza in Cincinnati. The Association‘s activities were summarized by President
Roger H. Smith, and he alluded especially to the phenomenal growth in membership, which now
had almost reached the magic 10,000 mark.
A special session of the Legislature enabled the Association to render a worthwhile public
service and also demonstrate the political prowess of its staff. Word was out that Governor James
A. Rhodes was going to call a special session of the General Assembly. Such calls must specify
the purpose of the session and no other subjects may be considered unless the call is expanded by
the governor. Ohio‘s judicial salaries had been at a ridiculously low level for a number of years,
and many able judges had left the bench to seek the more lucrative rewards attendant upon the
private practice of law. Leaders of the bench and bar, and the politically astute members of the
bar headquarters staff, prevailed upon governor Rhodes to include in his call to the legislature the
subject of a salary increase for judges.
When the General Assembly convened, this same group went right to work and sponsored
legislation to bring Ohio judicial salaries in line with those prevailing in other states.
Compromise became the order of the day, however, and it was necessary to accept numerous
amendments in order to secure passage of the bill. The increases were not what had been hoped,
but they did make a substantial improvement in the judicial pay scale, and the bill passed in time
to become effective for the new terms starting in January, 1965.
***
Volunteer Counsel for Indigents
Following the passage by Congress of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, the Ohio State Bar
Association took another step in furtherance of the public interest. Although the Act authorized
the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants, it made no provision—and no
appropriation—for compensating the lawyers thus appointed. Chief Judge Paul C. Weick of the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a former President of the Ohio State Bar Association, called
upon the Association for assistance in supplying the names of lawyers who would be willing to
accept assignments to defend indigent prisoners without expectation of remuneration. Pursuant to
that inquiry from Judge Weick a request was sent to the bar associations of the state‘s larger
cities for lists of volunteers. In the words of President Smith, ―I was pleased, but not surprised, at
the uniformly cooperative response from those to whom I sent a request‖.
The Problem of Pre-Trial Publicity
A long overdue event took place on April 9, 1965 which, in retrospect, was the most
significant highlight of President Smith‘s term. At the suggestion of the Criminal Law
Committee, and with the approval of the Council of Delegates, Smith issued invitations to
leaders of state-wide organizations of attorneys, judges, law enforcement agencies, the news
media, and representatives of the general public, to attend a Conference on, ―Fair Trial and Free
Press.‖ The chief topic of discussion was to be pre-trial publicity, a problem which had been
underscored by the notorious Sam Sheppard murder trial in Cuyahoga County, which had
attracted nationwide attention and brought hordes of media people to throng the Criminal Courts
Building. One local newspaper editorially demanded a few days after the murder that Sam
Sheppard be apprehended, and exerted such pressure that the demand was met though the
evidence against him was by no means airtight. A judge of the Ohio Supreme Court n a
dissenting opinion referred to the ―Roman Holiday‖ atmosphere at the trial. Eventually, a federal
district court judge (Honorable Carl Weinman) ordered the defendant released, largely because
of the prejudicial effect of the publicity before and during the trial.
The conference on the subject of pre-trial publicity was attended by twenty-five
representatives of the interested groups, and was a distinct success. Each attendee left with a
better understanding of the problems of his counterparts, but more important all agreed to return
in September for another meeting to be hosted by the Ohio Newspaper Association.
***
Over the years much had been said about the unauthorized practice of law, but common
deterrents to effective action by the bar in this area had been the lack of a readily accessible,
accurate record of those persons in Ohio who are actually admitted to practice, and the absence
of adequate financial backing to seek out and remove unauthorized practitioners. A special
committee of the Association studied the problem and recommended a two-part program. Under
it the Supreme Court would be asked to establish a registration system whereby every lawyer
would be required to file with the court his name and other pertinent data, and to pay a fee. The
fund resulting from the fees would then be used by the Court to modernize and properly maintain
records on enrolled members of the bar, and to supervise procedures designed to prevent
unauthorized practice. The second part of the report recommended that the jurisdiction of the
Court‘s Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline be broadened to include the
investigation of unauthorized practice.
The President in 1964, Erle H. Bridgewater, Jr., had referred to a Scholarship Committee
appointed by him to seek ways of attracting superior young people to the law schools. That
committee had continued its work and in 1965 submitted detailed recommendations for a course
of action calculated to accomplish its goal. The committee prepared, published, and circulated
throughout Ohio, a pamphlet entitled, Planning Your Career in the Legal Profession. It also
developed a letter of instructions to local bar associations for their use in organizing and
directing pre-law clubs in the local high schools. These clubs would meet with judges and
lawyers, visit law offices, observe court trials and study the administration of justice. In addition,
the group proposed a grant program to assist needy, deserving law students.
1964 also saw a joint effort of the Association‘s Modern Courts Committee and the Ohio
Legislative Service Commission to produce a five-point program aimed at improving the Ohio
court system. The Legislative Service Commission held non-partisan hearings around the state to
acquaint the citizens with the proposal. When the 106th General Assembly convened, the
combined efforts of the two groups were embodied in a joint resolution to amend the judicial
article of the Ohio constitution. The resolution had the honor of being the first one introduced in
each house, but that was, unfortunately, the only thing it achieved.
Automated Legal Research
In 1965, James F. Preston, Jr., President of the Ohio State Bar Association, led the lawyers of
Ohio and the nation into the computer age when he introduced the concept of computerized legal
data retrieval. The subject had been under consideration for several years by a committee of
which Preston was chairman. In retrospect, no single event has so completely revolutionized the
study and the practice of law as has the development of the computerized legal research system
by the Mead Corporation of Chillicothe, Ohio, in cooperation with the Ohio State Bar
Association.
Starting modestly with a data bank in Dayton, Ohio, which contained only the Ohio
Constitution, statutes, and reported cases of the courts of Ohio, the system grew spectacularly.
The end is not in sight. Its library now includes the appellate and supreme court cases of fortyeight states, all of the reported cases of the federal court system, including the Tax Court, as well
as corporate annual reports and certain periodicals. To manage this exciting new development,
Mead Corporation set up the New York-based company known as Mead Data Central (MDC).
The Ohio State Bar Association established an Ohio, non-profit corporation known as Ohio Bar
Automated Research Corporation (OBAR) as a sponsoring organization for the legal data
retrieval system.
***
Having achieved the momentous accomplishment of inaugurating the LEXIS system, Jim
Preston characteristically sought out other goals for the betterment of the Association. One of the
first items to receive his attention was an obvious shortcoming in the Client‘s Security Fund
which, having been instituted and financed by the Ohio State Bar Association, limited its
coverage to defalcations by lawyers who were members of the Association. It quickly became
apparent, however, that most of the wrongdoers were non-members of the Association, and thus
most of those who lost from their depredations were barred from compensation from the Fund
were amended to authorize reimbursement in proper cases for losses resulting from
embezzlement or similar dishonest acts by non-members. To protect against the expanded
exposure, an increase in the Association‘s dues was adopted.
Join the Association and See the World
One of the priorities of trade associations has always been service to members. In an unrelated
area, the top priority of travel agencies is salesmanship. These two priorities merged in 1965—to
the great enjoyment of the members of the Ohio State Bar Association—with the institution of a
diversified and attractive travel program. Destinations for these trips have included every one of
the earth‘s continents. Through a succession of travel agencies, the program has improved and
moved forward until it is one of the most pleasant and attractive activities of the Association.
Annually, it attracts many lawyers and their families, who join together for fun and fellowship
while visiting the world‘s most scenic and glamorous spots. A little known but beneficial side
effect is that the travel program attracts to the Association, and its multitude of activities, many
people who would not otherwise have become involved.
***
Other important accomplishments during the presidency of James F. Preston, Jr. were the
establishment of the metropolitan bar officers meeting, the creation of the Ohio State Legal
Services Association to promote the delivery of legal services to the indigent, and the orientation
program for law students in cooperation with the law schools of Ohio.
The Ohio Bar Medal
1965 marked another milestone for the Ohio State Bar Association. Any objective person
acquainted with the work of civic groups, governmental agencies, and charitable or educational
organizations, is well aware that lawyers occupy eminent positions in their leadership. The same
is true of the lay boards in the churches. Bar Association committee work preempts literally
thousands of hours of valuable, billable time of members of the legal profession. These deeds are
frequently overlooked by the general public, whose view of lawyers is often somewhat less than
favorable.
To help counter this problem, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution in November
1964 calling for the creation of an award to be known as the ―Ohio Bar Medal.‖ This award was
to be bestowed annually upon one or more lawyers who had rendered outstanding service to
humanity, the community, and the profession. Thus, for the first time, the Ohio State Bar
Association was in a position to give tangible recognition t outstanding civic and professional
service by its members. President Preston had the pleasant duty of presenting the first Ohio Bar
Medals to three distinguished Buckeye barristers: Honorable Roy J. Gillen of Jackson, retired
judge of the Fourth District Court of Appeals; Robert P. Goldman of Cincinnati, a civic leader in
his home city and the man who, more than any other, was responsible for the enactment of the
Uniform Commercial Code in Ohio; and Edwin L. Mitchell of Marion, who was instrumental in
the establishment of the Ohio State University Branch in Marion.
The Ohio Legal Services Association
With the dawn of the age of consumerism there arose a demand for availability of legal
services to the poor. This demand was manifested partly in the form of federal statutory
enactments and veiled implications in various federal court decisions. Responding to the impetus
occasioned by these developments, and recognizing an opportunity for public service to the less
fortunate among Ohio‘s citizenry, the Association moved to create the Ohio State Legal Services
Association. Under the leadership of Bitner Browne of Springfield and Michael Scott of
Cleveland, the Association organized the first statewide program to be approved and funded by
the federal government.
Reorganizing for Efficiency
Dayton was the scene of the 1967 Annual Meeting. The past year had produced a number of
changes in the Association‘s organizational structure. Historically, the incoming president
appointed the members of the standing committees when he took office on July 1. With the
increasing involvement in legislative affairs, the short comings of this system became more and
more apparent. Since the legislature, by constitutional mandate, convened on the first Monday in
January in the odd-numbered years, the preceding six months gave the new state bar committees
too little time to meet, organize, draft and finalize legislative proposals for consideration by the
Council of Delegates and the Executive Committee. Therefore, the Council of Delegates ordered
that all standing committee appointments be made on a calendar year basis. Other changes
accomplished during the year were a reduction in the number of standing committees, an orderly
plan for drafting and submitting proposals for introduction in the legislature, and rotation of
members on the various committees to insure the infusion of new ideas and the participation in
bar work of new people.
***
The Ohio State Legal Services Association was established on a firm footing, with a $60,000
federal grant, and the appointment of Robert Blattner as Director and Willard Richey as
Assistant Director.
The Client Security Fund had received approval to cover all lawyers, whether Association
members or not. Its assets totaled $92,000, but no claims were paid from the fund in the current
year.
The exciting legal data retrieval project was ready to go and OBAR, the non-profit operating
corporation, was duly incorporated with James F. Preston, Jr., as Chairman of the Board.
Certain irregularities in probate practice had occurred in Cincinnati and Cleveland which, of
course, received wide media coverage. Although these irregularities were isolated instances, the
effect upon public confidence in the legal profession could not be overlooked. Furthermore, it
had been many years since the probate code had undergone a thorough revision. The need for
action was clearly indicted. President Dale responded by appointing a blue-ribbon committee
chaired by Erle H. Bridgewater, Jr. Its membership included representatives of the Association‘s
committees on Judicial Administration and Legal Reform, Ethics, Public Relations, Probate and
Trust Law, and Professional Economics, plus two probate judges, two members of the
legislature, and two bank trust officers. The charge to the special committee was to study all
probate practices, procedures, and statutes.
In 1967, president Dale could announce that the Association‘s membership had pierced the
stratospheric level of 10,000 during his term. The addition of 467 new members brought the
roster to 10,264.
Progress was noted in another direction. Dale‘s address was accompanied by a slide
presentation depicting various bar activities interspersed with an occasional extensive display of
feminine pulchritude, which caused some of the older members to recall the halcyon days of the
Cedar Point conventions.
Continuing the custom inaugurated in the previous year, the Ohio Bar Medal was awarded to
three distinguished lawyers; Judge Fred B. Cramer of the Butler County Common Pleas Court,
and Carl D. Friedbolin and Alfred A. Benesch, both of Cleveland. Judge Cramer of Hamilton
had been on the common pleas bench for twenty-eight years. Benesch and Friedbolin had a total
between them of 131 years as members of the bar. Benesch had served as city councilman, State
Commerce director and Cleveland Board of Education member, as well as being active in many
religious and welfare organizations. Friedbolin was the Referee in Bankruptcy, and was the
author of the Cleveland City Club‘s Anvil Revue for many years.
The Modern Courts Amendment
The Association year of 1967-1968 is one upon which Ohio lawyers may reflect with
justifiable pride. One of their number, Earl F. Morris of Columbus, was serving as President of
the American Bar Association. Moreover, the long-sought Modern Courts Amendment was
approved by the voters of Ohio at the May primary, and much of the credit for the victory is due
to Morris.
A word about Earl Morris‘ career is in order. He served as President of the Columbus, the
Ohio State, and the American Bar Associations. Often, when a lawyer attains the presidency of
his local bar association, he steps down at the end of his term and is seldom heard from again,
but Earl was (and is) the very antithesis of this practice. Only two years after he relinquished the
reins of leadership in the Ohio State Bar Association, he accepted the chairmanship of a special
committee to review the entire Ohio Court System and make recommendations to improve,
modernize and strengthen it. Eventually that committee was merged with a special committee
chaired by another past president, Kenneth Clark of Youngstown, whose special charge was the
merit selection plan. Together, these two distinguished leaders toiled in committee sessions, in
the legislative halls, and on public platforms in the interests of court reform.
Although Clark‘s special interest, the merit plan, was deleted by the legislature, he and Morris
continued their battle for passage of the Modern Courts amendment, and its adoption by the
electorate was a personal triumph for these two leaders of the Ohio State Bar Association. Their
dedication was a shining example for the entire membership to follow.
***
President Norton R. Webster‘s term began on July 1, 1967. The Ohio Bar Automated
Research Corporation hired its first full-time staff member—Willard R. Richey, who had been
affiliated with the Ohio Legal Services Association. Richey‘s assignment was to organize the
research work and assist attorneys in the use of the legal data retrieval system.
The Ohio Legal Services Association concluded its first year of operation. Its function was to
provide training, research and technical assistance to local bar associations wishing to make legal
services available to indigents. Its director was Robert A. Blattner. Bitner Browne of Springfield
served as President. When Richey left the organization, he was replaced by Jerome R. Bahlmann
of Cincinnati.
One of President Webster‘s special interests was public relations, and great strides were taken
in the area during his term. A newspaper column entitled, ―You and the Law‖ had been
inaugurated previously, and was still enjoying great success. More than 130 Ohio newspapers
with a total circulation of 800,000 were carrying the column. The popular pamphlet series on
legal subjects of interest to the public had been in existence for more than a decade, but it was a
particular and spectacular success in the summer of 1967, when 109,203 copies were distributed
by the Association.
***
The 1967 fall Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Foundation, was held at the Neil House
in Columbus on November 17, and Professor Oliver Schroeder, Jr. of Case-Western Reserve
Law School was the speaker. He described the results of his work on lawyer discipline, which he
had completed under the grant from the Foundation. Schroeder compiled his research into a book
entitled Lawyer Discipline—The Ohio Story, which described the first 100 cases under the Ohio
Supreme Court‘s new disciplinary rule. Copies of the book were given to each member of the
Foundation. Awards were given by the Foundation to Judge Russell H. Kear of Upper Sandusky
and C. Blake McDowell of Akron. Kear‘s award was based upon his contributions to the
administration of justice and service to the legal profession. McDowell was honored for his
adherence to the high traditions and principles of the legal profession for more than fifty years.
***
The Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association was scheduled for Toledo. Howard C.
Schwab and Theodore R. Vogt were named as Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the
Convention Committee. The contest for the vice presidency, and the Toledo Bar Association‘s
reputation for providing outstanding entertainment, promised an exciting and interesting
convention. As an added feature, Earl Morris, in his capacity as President of the American Bar
Association, was scheduled as the speaker at the general membership luncheon.
In his presidential address to the Toledo meeting, Norton Webster could point to a number of
long-sought goals which had finally be attained. First and foremost was the approval of the
electorate of the Modern Courts Amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Among other things, the
Amendment: prohibited a person from seeking judicial office after reaching the age of seventy;
granted plenary rule making power to the Supreme Court; made the probate court a division of
the court of common pleas, with judges specifically elected to the probate division; and
eliminated the requirement that sic judges of the Supreme Court must concur to hold a statute
unconstitutional.
***
The death of Sheldon Laning of Norwalk, owner of The Law Abstract Publishing Company,
presented a problem for the Association. The company published the Ohio State Reports, the
Ohio Appellate Reports, the Ohio Law Abstract Reports, Ohio Miscellaneous Reports and the
Ohio BAR. The advance sheets of the reports of important cases published weekly in the Ohio
BAR made that publication unique among bar association magazines. Mr. Laning‘s death,
coupled with the fact that the equipment at the plant was becoming obsolescent, raised serious
questions as to the future of the Ohio BAR and its case reports. The problem was solved by the
purchase of the company from the Laning estate by the Ohio state Bar Association.
***
Additional achievements cited by President Webster were the progress of OBAR and the
successful passage of legislation to increase judicial salaries. The latter event took place during
an extension of the regular session of the 107th General Assembly into 1968—the longest
session since the Depression years. For the Association and its two principal legislative measures
the long session was fortuitous, but for the people of Ohio it established a bad precedent, since
the lawmakers have gradually extended their sessions to cover virtually the entire biennium and
have increased their salaries commensurately. The day of the citizen-legislator envisioned by the
draftsmen of the Constitutions of 1802 and 1851 is clearly over.
***
The awarding of the Ohio Bar Medal is always a matter of great interest at the convention.
Two lawyers were recognized for their outstanding contributions to their profession and their
community at the 88th annual Meeting. It was mot fitting that one of them should receive the
highest honor granted by the Association in his hometown—the medal was conferred on George
W. Ritter, who had been in the active practice of law for sixty-one years. He was the prime
mover and chief benefactor of the Ohio Legal Center. In addition, he had made generous gifts to
Lake Erie College, Baldwin Wallace College, the University of Toledo, and the town of
Vermilion. Louis J. Hofstadter of Hamilton was the other recipient of the medal. He organized a
legal aid and lawyer referral system in Butler County, both of which filled a long-felt need for
legal assistance for the less affluent citizens of his community.
Implementing the Modern Courts Amendment
The prelude to the presidency of Robert D. Moss of Barberton, Ohio, was the adoption by the
voters of Ohio of the Modern Courts Amendment to Article IV of the State Constitution at the
May primary in 1968. Almost nine years to the day after the idea had first been proposed and
after the expenditure of literally thousands of hours by the Modern Courts Committee, the
Executive Committee, the Council of Delegates, and the staff of the Ohio State Bar Association,
and after many frustrating experiences in the General Assembly, the people of Ohio had the first
comprehensive revision of the judicial article in the 20th century. Perhaps the most important
feature of the amendment was a clear and unambiguous grant of rulemaking and supervisory
powers to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Kingsley A. Taft convened a meeting in Columbus which was attended by
representatives of the State and local bar associations, the judiciary, and attorneys representing
all branches of the practice of law. Methods of implementing the amendment were explored, and
procedural plans were discussed. As a result of this meeting, a Rules Advisory Committee was
appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court. Bitner Browne of Springfield, the Vice President of the
Ohio State Bar Association, was one of nine practicing lawyers chosen to serve on the
Committee. This was a fortuitous choice for, in addition to being an able and distinguished
lawyer and leader of the organized bar, his position as a member of the Associations Executive
Committee enabled him to report regularly to that group on the progress of the work of the Rules
Advisory Committee. Just two years after its organization in the committee‘s work product, the
Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, became effective on July 1, 1970. Chief Justice Taft had died in
the meantime, and Governor James A. Rhodes had appointed Justice C. William O‘Neill to
succeed Taft.
The appointment created an historic first in the Buckeye State. O‘Neill was the first man in
Ohio‘s history to occupy the top position in all three branches of the state government. He had
been Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1947 and 1948, Governor of Ohio in 1957
and 1958, and was Chief Justice from 1970 to 1978. It was as Chief Justice and, therefore, the
ultimate arbiter of the Supreme Court‘s newly vested rulemaking power, that O‘Neill made his
greatest contribution to his state.
Breaking the Caseload Logjam
From the time that President Rufus P. Ranney exhorted the newly formed Ohio State Bar
Association to attack the problem of justice delayed in 1880, much had been tried but little had
been accomplished in breaking the logjam in the courts—until Chief Justice O‘Neill addressed
himself to the problem. His results were spectacular. Cases in metropolitan counties had been
taking three to five years between filing and trial, but by instituting the personal docket system
coupled with periodic checking and reporting, the dockets in nearly all of the large counties were
quickly brought to relatively current status. The diminutive Chief Justice with the powerful voice
and the winning smile became a familiar figure at State Bar conventions as he gave out awards to
the trial judges of Ohio for superior service in the speedy, efficient, and just disposition of cases.
The Ohio Law Abstract Printing Company
Besides the revolution in the administration of justice in Ohio, other matters commanded the
attention of the administration of President Robert D. Moss. For many years the Ohio State Bar
Association had been dependent upon The Law Abstract Publishing Company in Norwalk, Ohio,
for its printing needs. The Ohio BAR Report and the various ―Official Reports‖ series were both
printed and published in the small Norwalk plant. Problems were increasing, however, due
mainly to the aging machinery and work force. The problems came to a head with publisher
Laning‘s death. Action was required and President Moss took it—the Bar Association purchased
The Law Abstract Publishing Company, and has operated it continuously since then, thus
assuring the uninterrupted distribution of the company‘s two publications which are so important
to Ohio lawyers. Myron w. Ulrich of Cleveland was elected President of the company, and Fred
Barry, Jr. of Mount Vernon was named Vice President.
Prepaid Legal Services
Recognizing the obligation of the profession to make legal services available to the public at
reasonable cost, a special committee was appointed to study the concept of group legal services.
With the example of prepaid hospitalization insurance as a model, the committee went to work.
From its deliberations and careful planning has evolved one of the nation‘s premier prepaid legal
service plans. Controversy raged over whether the plan ought to be the closed-panel type
customarily sponsored by labor unions, or the open-panel plan advocated by the organized bar.
Under the former, any member of the plan needing legal services is limited in his selection of a
lawyer to one on the plan-approved list. The plan adopted by the Ohio State Bar Association was
an open-panel plan, which guaranteed to the participant his freedom of choice in the selection of
an attorney. Jay B. Ellis of the Association staff played a leading role in bringing the Group
Legal Services Plan to fruition and national recognition.
Finally, 1969 marked a milestone in the career of the Association‘s Executive Director,
Joseph B. Miller. In honor of his twenty years of service to the Ohio State Bar Association, he
was given a gold watch. In that twenty-year period the membership had grown from 5,400 to
over 11,000, and the budget had jumped from $43,800 to $338,000.
A Time to Consolidate
In reading the Ohio BAR one is continually impressed with the accomplishments and
innovative ideas recorded there. The Ohio BAR issues published during presidency of Bitner
Browne of Springfield reinforces this impression.
Introspection and reflection are good for the soul, it is said, and with this in mind a Self-Study
Committee was appointed by President Browne and chaired by F. Wemmer Gooding of Lima. It
was charged with examining all phases of the structure and activities of the Ohio State Bar
Association including, appropriately enough, the entire committee system of the Association.
Historically, presidents have said that the committees are the heart of the Association.
Historically, too, presidents have been faced with the nagging problem of appointing the
chairmen of these units. Selecting chairmen for thirty committees was frequently done by the
simple process of reappointing the incumbents, and this occasionally resulted in stagnation, with
consequent poor attendance and lack of progress. The Self-Study Committee recommended that
a chairman be limited to three years‘ tenure. In addition, it proposed that law students be
appointed to the standing committees. Both suggestions were adopted, and sixty law students
were assigned to twenty of the standing committees.
***
The work of the Rules Advisory Committee, appointed following the adoption of the Modern
Courts Amendment, was completed in 1969. Upon receipt of that committee‘s draft of the
proposed Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ohio Supreme Court requested the Ohio State Bar
Association to review the draft. The task was assigned to the Judicial Administration and Legal
Reform Committee which, after careful study, recommended approval of the rules as drafted and
urged opposition to any attempt by the General Assembly to disapprove the Rules (under the
Modern Courts amendment, procedural rules proposed by the Supreme Court go into effect
automatically unless, within a specified time, the legislature adopts a resolution of disapproval).
Shot-down in Flames—Again
The 1969 legislative program of the Association was limited, and was marred by a frustrating
defeat. After years of effort by the Modern Courts Committee, a resolution to amend the Ohio
Constitution to provide for a limited appointive judiciary was favorably reported by the House
Judiciary Committee and scheduled for action by the House. In spite of concerted effort by the
Association, however, the resolution was defeated. The set-back did not deter the hardy souls of
the Association‘s staff and its Modern Courts Committee, and they continued to press on,
refining and rewording the merit selection plan and devising new plans for developing support.
As had been observed by Arthur Vanderbilt some years before, court reform was, ―not a sport for
the short-winded.‖
***
The year climaxed with the Association‘s Convention, which was held in Akron. The event
had a touch of pathos—it marked the final Association meeting in the Mayflower Hotel. This
once-magnificent landmark of the Rubber City had fallen victim to the super highways and the
luxury motels on the periphery of the city, and was soon to become a housing facility for senior
citizens. With the demise of the Mayflower, Akron lost its place in the list of Ohio cities with
facilities capable of hosting the Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association.
The convention was very special for three distinguished Ohio attorneys who were awarded the
Ohio Bar Medal. The three were: James F. Preston, Jr. of Cleveland; Richard F. Sater of
Columbus; and Fred A. Smith of Toledo. Preston, a former President of the Ohio State Bar
Association and member of the firm of Squire, Sanders 7 Dempsey, served as chairman of the
special committee which developed the automated legal research program. He became Chairman
of the Board of OBAR and was instrumental, in that capacity, in making the Lexis system the
success that it is today. Sater was long regarded as one of Ohio‘s leading authorities on probate
law. A member of the firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, he served as Chairman of the
Association‘s Probate and Trust Law Committee for fifteen years. He was well known and
highly respected in the halls of the legislature for his skillful handling of Association bills in the
probate field. Smith was President of the Association in 1955-1956. He was one of the original
promoters of the Ohio Legal Center, and had the satisfaction of seeing his dream realized with
the opening of the beautiful new headquarters building. He also served as President of the Ohio
State Bar Foundation from 1961 to 1970.
The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure
The term of Merritt W. Green of Toledo as President of the Ohio State Bar Association, from
July 1, 1970 to June 30, 1971, could well be called the year of the revolution. On the day that
Green assumed the office of President, the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure became effective, and
a new era dawned for the bench and the trial bar.
There was a story circulating the legislative halls in Columbus in the 1940‘s and 1950‘s about
Fred L. Hoffman, Jr. of Cincinnati. Hoffman, a very able lawyer, judge, and legislator, served in
both houses of the General Assembly, and during this time he introduced many bills. The story
prevailed that the purpose behind some of these bills was to amend or repeal procedural statutes
which had caused him to lose some cases he had tried. Now, it would no longer be necessary for
lawyer-legislators to resort to such devices—the Modern Courts Amendment of 1968 made it
finally and abundantly clear that the Supreme Court was clothed with the power to promulgate
rules of practice and procedure in all of the courts of Ohio. Its first effort was to adopt a set of
rules based on the proven federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The bench and bar had responded promptly to the mandate of the electorate expressed in the
Modern Courts Amendment, and did so in exemplary fashion. Literally thousands of hours had
been spent by leading lawyers and judges to draft the rules. The Ohio Legal Center Institute
worked feverishly to prepare presentations on the new rules. Thanks to these efforts, the
transition was accomplished smoothly, and satisfaction with the new practice seemed universal.
***
Under its new power, the Supreme Court made other changes. For years lawyers had suffered
discrimination in the area of tax benefits accorded by the Congress to small corporations. The
Ohio law quite properly prohibited corporations from practicing law. The Supreme Court of
Ohio, recognizing the unfairness of this situation, adopted a rule permitting lawyers to practice
together as a professional association for tax purposes. Moreover, the Court brought the
advancements of the electronics ago to the courtroom by authorizing the use of various recording
devices in lieu of short-hand reporting of court proceedings. This rule was a great boon to those
counties where court reporters were scarce. In addition, rules were adopted requiring lawyers
from other states to apply for admission before being permitted to practice in Ohio courts, and
also to provide for the issuance of advisory rulings on questions which arose in grievance
committee proceedings.
Lawyer Registration
Because of his long service as chairman of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee,
President Green was thoroughly familiar with the many problems involved in the area of
unauthorized practice. Under his leadership, the Association co-operated with the Supreme Court
in developing a questionnaire aimed at getting to the root of some of these problems. Two
questions were posed to the membership of the Association: do you favor a Court rule
establishing a uniform procedure in unauthorized practice cases? And Do you favor periodic
registration of all lawyers and the payment by them of a registration fee to be used in policing the
unauthorized practice? The results were interesting: 5,606 replies were received, representing
47% of the questionnaires sent—an excellent response. Of those answering, 83% favored a
uniform rule and 71% supported periodic registration. Among those who did not agree were
some members of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association, who sought an injunction in the name
of that group to prevent the registration.
***
The year of the change also manifested itself in the staff. William Harrington resigned, after
having served with distinction as legislative counsel, and participating actively in the OBAR
program. He was replaced by Jay B. Ellis of Cleveland. The ever-increasing work of the
Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct and the Committee on Unauthorized
Practice necessitated further augmentation of the professional staff, and Albert L. Bell of
Columbus was hired to assist those committees.
The Clients‘ Security Fund completed its tenth year. President Green reported in his annual
message that during the life of the Fund, it had received and processed forty-nine claims. Of
them, twenty-eight had been paid in full or in part. $13,000 had been recovered from lawyers
whose defalcations gave rise to the claims. The preceding twelve-month period had seen nine
claims filed and $22,750 paid to aggrieved clients.
Chief Justice C. William O‘Neill of the Ohio Supreme Court was awarded the Ohio Bar
Medal at the annual banquet. O‘Neill had been appointed chief justice on April 4, 1970, upon the
death of Kingsley A. Taft, and immediately set about to make the new rule-making power of the
Supreme Court an effective instrument for improving of the administration of justice in Ohio.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
A CENTURY OF SERVICE
“… there is more to being a lawyer than the mere possession of legal knowledge.
Integrity, a sound sense of moral values, respect for the courts and their judicial
officers, and dedication to the causes of one‟s clients—are all qualities obviously
required of every lawyer.
“There are other responsibilities, however, which every lawyer must assume as a
consequence of the privilege of being admitted to the practice of law. Most
important of these is the recognition of a lawyer‟s responsibilities to his fellow
citizens …
“Equally important is the recognition of a lawyer‟s responsibility to his
profession. As Theodore Roosevelt said many years ago. „Every man owes some
of his time to upbuilding of the profession to which he belongs.‟ There are great
challenges facing the legal profession today, and the assistance of every lawyer is
needed to meet these challenges …”
Sam D. Bartlo
***
Of Committees and Men
Myron w. Ulrich of Cleveland served as President of the Ohio State Bar Association from
July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1971. The one-time football star at Western Reserve University once
said that he would be remembered as the President who raised the dues, but review of his
administration reveals that he deserves to be remembered for other significant accomplishments.
There is a quip which goes, ―I have looked high and low, all over the city, but I have never
seen a monument to a committee.‖ It may have some truth in it as far as committees of the Ohio
State Bar Association. Its committees may not earn monuments of stone or bronze, but they do
earn respect for the high quality of the work they produce. Two special committees appointed by
President Ulrich, each of which made a substantial contribution to the progress of the
Association, are cases in point.
The first group was chaired by Charlton Myers of Marion, and its directive was to review the
constitution and make recommendations for necessary revisions. Its report was approved by the
Executive Committee, and the proposed amendments were adopted by the membership at the
Cincinnati convention in 1972. One of the amendments concerned the makeup of the Council of
Delegates, the state bar‘s deliberative arm, whose members are elected from the various state bar
districts by the lawyers in those districts. Under the amendment, the President was authorized to
appoint members at large to serve on the Council in order to insure minority group
representation.
The President-Elect, Rudolph Janata, was appointed chairman of the second special
committee, whose charge was to review the committee structure of the Association and
determine the need for new committees or sections, and to study the format of the Annual
Meeting. Janata‘s group recommended the use of sections rather than committees in substantive
law areas, such as real property, probate and trust law, taxation, and the like. This was
accomplished in March 1972. Another suggestion was to have the committees and sections meet
three times a year. For many years it had been the practice to summon the membership to
Columbus for meetings in September and March. Under the new plan, the committees would
also meet concurrently with the annual convention. Other proposals were to have an annual
orientation meeting of committee and section chairmen and Association officers, and to revise
the convention format by eliminating Saturday sessions.
***
The Client Security Fund continued to experience growth in the number of claims made and
amounts paid out. One drawback of the fund was that a claimant generally was faced with the
necessity of hiring a lawyer to prepare and process his claim. This was counter-productive,
because it defeated the public service purpose of the fund and, in effect, reduced the amount the
injured party would recover. To remedy this, arrangements were made with local bar
associations to assist claimants in processing, filing and prosecuting claims.
An interesting new development took place during the 1971-1972 bar year. The presidents
and executive directors of nine midwestern state bar associations agreed to set up an informal
organization to meet periodically to discuss common problems. This activity, coupled with the
custom of having the presidents of the bar associations of neighboring states attend the Ohio
State Bar Association convention on a reciprocal basis, has developed a fine rapport between the
leaders of these groups.
President Ulrich gave this description of his term: ―This was the year of action which was the
product of the work done in at least the two prior years.‖ Activities in this category included
liaison committees which met with their counterparts from the Ohio Bankers Association, the
Ohio State Medical Association, and the Ohio Association of real Estate Boards. A special
committee was appointed to work with the Ohio Tax Commissioner to study problems arising
out of the new Ohio estate tax law. These inter-professional relations committees proved that
substantial results can best be achieved by substituting consultation for confrontation.
OBAR was developing rapidly. Terminals were located in the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio
Attorney General‘s Office, the Cleveland Bar Association office, Case Western Reserve Law
School, and a number of large law offices in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The royalty
feature in OBAR‘s contract with Mead Data Central made the purchase of the service by the
New York State Bar Association of special interest.
On merit selection, long a project of the Association, efforts were begun to secure the
Governor‘s cooperation in the voluntary appointment of judicial nominating commissions.
Rudolph Janata, Earl F. Morris, William Milligan and Bruce Petrie were instrumental in
preparing and submitting this proposal.
Progress was also made in prepaid group legal services. A committee chaired by former
President Robert D. Moss of Barberton was developing plans to make this program a reality in
Ohio.
The Expanding Association Programs
Noteworthy among many things in the address of President Rudolph Janata of Columbus at
the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association was a statistical report on the group‘s
status. By 1973 it was the third largest voluntary bar association in the United States, with nearly
12,500 members. The Executive Committee had twenty members; ninety-nine lawyers
comprised the policymaking Council of Delegates; there were seven sections representing
various fields of substantive law, and each section was directed by a board of governors of
twenty men; eight special committees and twenty-two standing committees had a total
membership of 1,099. The office staff headed by Joseph B. Miller rounded out the working force
of the Association.
Further evidence of the growth and effectiveness of the Association is demonstrated by an
examination of the list of its affiliated organizations, each of which served a particular field of
the law, or helped operate the Association‘s vast service program: the Ohio Legal Center
Institute; the Ohio State Bar Foundation; The Law Abstract Publishing Company; the Ohio Bar
title Insurance Company; the Ohio Bar Automated Research corporation; the Ohio State Bar
Association Legal Services Fund; and the Ohio State Legal Services Association.
President Janata could report that the insurance program now encompassed group life,
accident and health, income protection, and automobile coverage for the membership. The group
travel program continued to expand, and five tours were conducted during the year.
A Brief Rift in the Clouds
A bright spot appeared in the long, frustrating history of the Association‘s merit selection plan
when the Governor, by executive order, established judicial nominating councils for the Ohio
Supreme Court and each of the state‘s appellate court districts. The impetus for this action came
from the Association‘s Modern Courts Committee and the dedicated efforts of three of its
leaders, William Milligan of Sidney, Earl F. Morris of Columbus and Bruce I. Petrie of
Cincinnati. The members of the committee submitted an extensive list of leading citizens of the
Buckeye State for consideration by the governor for appointment to the commissions. The Ohio
State Bar Foundation contributed $5,000 to finance the staffing and operation of the office which
would serve the commissions. A training session for commission members was held, and the
commissions went to work.
It seemed that the long sought goal was in sight but, maddeningly, the list of nominees for
judicial positions received scant attention, and many of the appointments were made with the
usual political motives controlling the process. The program was abandoned when James A.
Rhodes returned as chief executive in January of 1975.
The Lawyer Referral Service
The major public service program was established in 1973—a statewide lawyer referral
service. Lists of lawyers in each county who would be willing to participate in the service were
compiled, a telephone line on which toll-free calls from anywhere in Ohio could be made to
Association headquarters was installed, and the caller would be given the name of a participating
lawyer in his county. Under the plan, the attorney would offer a one-half hour consultation for
$10. Thereafter, fee arrangements would be by negotiation.
Prepaid Legal Services
In a related area, the State Bar accomplished another objective during Janata‘s term with the
prepaid legal services plan, called unofficially, ―Judicare.‖ It is an open-panel plan, under which
the freedom to choose one‘s legal counsel is guaranteed to all persons participating in the plan.
No-Fault Insurance
The Association‘s activities continued apace in the General Assembly. No-fault insurance had
become a cause celebre, both locally and nationally. As the issue warmed-up in the Ohio
Legislature, the legislators themselves requested the Association‘s position on the controversial
subject. This auspicious beginning did not change the fact that introduction and eventual
approval of a bill is extremely rocky. This was true for the Association‘s no-fault bill, and
passage was denied during the legislative session.
***
Senate Joint Resolution No. 10, the Modern Courts Committee‘s merit selection proposal, was
reported out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the remainder of the road also proved to be
too rocky. The measure joined its predecessors in the cemetery of lost causes.
A Washington Office
It was becoming increasingly apparent that the expanding role of the federal government in
every aspect of the personal and corporate life of the people merited attention from
representative groups such as the Ohio State Bar Association. Investigation revealed that the
Texas Bar Association had retained a Washington lawyer to represent it before the legislative
and executive branches of the federal government. In April 1973 this same lawyer was retained
by the Ohio State Bar Association to look after its interests in Washington.
Updates and Planning Conferences
Perhaps the two most significant accomplishments of President Janata‘s administration were
Update 1973 and the Proctor Conference. The former was an important improvement in
continuing legal education. The Ohio Legal Center Institute staff reviewed statutory enactments
and reported judicial decisions of the previous twelve months, and prepared a digest of the new
developments in book form. It was made available to all registrants at the Annual Meeting. In
addition, the subjects were presented at the Convention in a series of short seminars. This
outstanding project has been repeated annually, and is a highly useful service to the membership.
The Proctor Conference was a first for the Ohio State Bar Association. The site of the meeting
was the Proctor Conference Center, a facility near London, Ohio maintained by the Episcopal
Diocese of Southern Ohio. Invitees were the members of the Executive Committee, the Council
of Delegates, local bar association officers, and lawyers who had demonstrated a continuing
interest in Association affairs over a period of years. The group divided into sections, each of
which examined all phases of bar association work, the directions in which the profession was
moving with respect to the public, the administration of justice, and the profession itself. After
thorough consideration and discussion of the issues, seventy recommendations were made and an
order of priority established. Many of these items were the subject of future Association
programs. The conference was chaired by William L. Howland of Portsmouth, and was
enthusiastically endorsed by all who attended.
***
The 1973 Annual Meeting was held in Dayton. The site was most appropriate because the
Gem City was the home of Mead Data Corporation, which had developed the information bank
for Ohio Bar Automated Research Corporation (OBAR). Convention visitors were afforded the
opportunity to observe at first hand this modern miracle of legal data retrieval.
A memorable feature of the meeting was the celebration of the twenty-fifty anniversary of the
affiliation of Joseph B. Miller with the Ohio State Bar Association. When he joined the staff in
1948, it consisted of six persons: the long-time secretary and Supreme Court Reporter, John L.
W. Henney; Leo Enright; a bookkeeper; and three secretaries. They were housed in makeshift
offices in the State House Annex in Columbus. The total membership of the Association was
5,500, and the annual budget was $43,000. Miller received a set of matching luggage and a
plaque with the inscription, ―To Joseph B. Miller, in recognition of 25 years of dedicated service
and distinguished leadership of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1948-1973.‖ It was signed by all
of the living presidents of the Association under whom Miller had served.
Political Battles
In May of 1972, the lawyers of Ohio turned to southwest Ohio for leadership, and tapped
Walter A. Porter of Dayton to be President-elect. When Porter assumed the presidency on July 1,
1973, political action at the state and national level became the watchword of the Ohio State Bar
Association.
The 110th Ohio General Assembly adopted a resolution, backed by the Association,
proposing a constitutional amendment which among other things removed the prohibition against
raises in salary during a judge‘s term, and authorized the General Assembly to adopt legislation
to create a district court system. This latter provision had been tacked onto the Associationsponsored resolution at the last minute, and caused much dissatisfaction among rural judges and
lawyers who felt that such power in the legislature would be used to eliminate the principle of
one common pleas court in each county. The amendment was nevertheless adopted at the
election in November 1973, and to date the fears of the rural brethren have been proven
groundless.
When the U.S. Supreme Court jumped into what the late Justice Felix Frankfurter once
termed the ―political thicket‖ of state legislative apportionment, it sounded the death knell for
rural domination of the legislatures of the several states. Ever since the days of William
McKinley‘s political mentor, Marcus A. Hanna, the so-called ―Cornstalk Brigade‖ had wielded
the real power in Ohio‘s General Assembly. Under this bloc, the legislature convened pursuant to
constitutional mandate on the first Monday in January in the odd-numbered years, and completed
its work in six or seven months (with one week out in late March or early April to enable the
farmer members to plow their fields). Those days, like the five-cent cigar, are gone forever. In
their place have come virtually continuous sessions, which occupy the greater part of each
biennium at a staggering cost to the taxpayers.
The expansion of legislative sessions, coupled with the growing number of proposed bills
emerging from the expanded committee structure of the Association, made it impossible for the
staff to cope with the mushrooming State House work load. Nearly every statewide trade or
professional association had faced this problem, and had solved it by engaging one or more fulltime staff members for legislative work. Recognizing the necessity for similar action if its
interests were to be adequately represented, the Ohio State Bar Association engaged Robert A.
Manning of Akron to head its newly created Office of Legislative Affairs. Manning, a former
state representative, had made a fine record in the legislature and was highly respected by
Republicans and Democrats alike. An office was opened in the Neil House and, with a full time
staff operating it, the Ohio State Bar Association was able to deal promptly and effectively with
legislative matters affecting the administration of justice and practice of law in Ohio.
If the political problems in Columbus were serious, those in Washington were no less so. To
protect its interests on the national scene, the Association had engaged the services of a
Washington lawyer, Douglas Smith. Operating out of his Washington office, Smith looked after
interests of the Association, and kept it advised on such matters as no-fault insurance and the
actions of various congressional committees and federal departments vis-à-vis the legal
profession.
The Research Program of the Ohio State Bar Foundation
Another important development transpired, with great implications for the future, when the
Ohio State Bar Foundation inaugurated its continuing research program. The Foundation had
been organized in 1951 to promote research in the law, advance legal knowledge, and improve
the administration of justice. Until 1973, however, it had never employed staff for these
purposes, but rather had fulfilled them by making grants to other organizations.
The Ohio Legal Center was built with funds contributed to the Foundation, and when George
Ritter made his generous gift which made the Center possible it was his wish that the Center
would become a hub for applied research in the law and the administration of justice. The Ohio
Legal Center Institute (which was founded when the Ohio Legal Center was completed) only
partly fulfilled his wish, since it concentrated its efforts on continuing legal education. As time
went on, however, the workload of Ohio‘s courts exploded and major revisions of the law were
enacted with increasing frequency, and it became more and more apparent that there was an
increasing need for applied research to help solve problems of the law and the administration of
justice as they arose. Thus it was that the Foundation began its continuing research program.
Thomas R. Swisher was hired as the Foundation‘s Research Director and first staff member of
the Foundation. A graduate of the University of Cincinnati College of Law, he was admitted to
the bar in 1960. He had served since 1966 as staff attorney and Chief of Legal Services for the
Ohio Legislative Service Commission, and his work there revealed him to be an able and
experienced researcher and writer. He assumed his duties with the Foundation in December,
1973, and the research program‘s first project was the book Transition from the Old to the New
Ohio Criminal Code, designed to help judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law endorsement
officers and corrections personnel make a smooth changeover when the new Ohio criminal code
replaced the old on January 1, 1974.
Since that first publication, the Foundation‘s research program has engaged in an increasing
number of research projects, and has published a number of books and pamphlets designed to
inform both lawyers and laymen about the law, and to improve the administration of justice.
Some of these publications are: The Law and You; Going to Court on Small Claims; Drug Abuse
Control; Ethics and Discipline in Ohio; Manual of Sentencing in Ohio; Sentencing Worksheets
and Guidelines; Legal Problems of Older Persons; Manual of Standard Probate Forms; and
others. All of these and more have helped fill a continuing need for timely research and
information on various subjects in the law, and all have been well received by the bench and bar,
and the public.
While the research program generates some income for the Ohio State Bar Foundation, it is
not self-sustaining. Funding comes mainly from the annual contributions of the Fellows of the
Foundation, who are elected as a professional honor from the membership of the Ohio State Bar
Association. Some additional revenue comes from dividends and interest from a modest
endowment. In addition, individual projects may be funded by grants from other foundations and
government agencies. Despite its limited budget, it is noteworthy that the scope of the program is
such that it has been singled-out for recognition by the National Conference of Bar Foundations,
an adjunct of the American Bar Association. Also, it is noteworthy that the program has grown
each year, so that in 1979 it became financially possible to hire an assistant to the Research
Director. Joyce Swepston now capably fulfills multiple duties as secretary, clerk, bookkeeper,
and occasional writer.
Lawyer Referral
Other events of importance took place in the 1973-1974 Association year. The state-wide
Lawyer Referral Service program, which had been promoted in the previous year under President
Rudolph Janata, became fully operational under the leadership of President Porter. By the end of
his term, sixty-eight counties had effective referral services in operation. Despite media
criticism, this was another example of the organized bar moving effectively to meet a
demonstrated public need.
A Service in Time of Need
April 1974 will long be remembered in Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio as the time of the killer
wind. A tornado roared through northern Kentucky and southeastern Indiana and touched down
on Xenia, Ohio, leaving death and destruction in a path literally miles wide. President Porter and
representatives of the Ohio State Legal Services association personally visited the ravaged area
and worked with the lawyers of Greene County to see that legal assistance was made available to
all who required it in their time of need. Reference is frequently and unfairly made by the media
to the alleged cupidity of the legal profession, but here was a shining example of busy lawyers
giving unstintingly of their time with no thought of reward other than the alleviation of human
misery.
***
The Annual Meeting of the Association was held in President Porter‘s home-town of Dayton.
Features of that meeting were the presentation to Earl f. Morris of the Herbert Lincoln Harley
Award of the American Judicature Society. Morris received the award in recognition for his
distinguished service in the area of improving the administration of justice.
The Ohio Bar Medal was presented to Samuel T. Gaines of Cleveland, and James Olds Sr. of
Akron. Gaines, a former president of the Cleveland Bar Association, served as chairman of the
Ohio State Bar Association‘s Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct. He was
instrumental in securing the adoption of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. James Olds, Sr. was active in many phases of bar association work,
having served as president of the Akron Bar Association, and as a member of the Ohio State Bar
Association‘s Executive Committee. The Ohio Supreme Court appointed Olds a member of the
Board of Bar Examiners. In his home community, he took the leadership in establishing a
comprehensive zoning ordinance and in reforming the Akron Municipal Court system.
Medical Malpractice
In his report to the membership at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar
Association, President William L. Howland of Portsmouth quoted a passage from Charles
Dickens‘ Tale of Two Cities to characterize his administration, ―It was the best of times. It was
the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom. It was the age of foolishness.‖
1975 was the year of medical malpractice legislation. Probably because the members of the
medical profession are the ones to whom the public looks to ease conscious pain, they have
earned for their calling an esteem in the eyes of the people generally far superior to that of any
other profession. Thus, it was not difficult for the Ohio State Medical Association to generate
substantial support for a bill that would effectively limit malpractice actions against doctors and
hospitals. Skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums added fuel to the fire of public
indignation because these premiums were reflected in increased health care costs.
For the Ohio State Bar Association, Dickens‘ words were most apropos. The introduction in
the Ohio legislature of H. B. No. 682, supported by the Ohio State Medical Association and the
Association of Ohio Hospitals, threw down a challenge to the organized bar of proportions
unmatched in recent years. From that standpoint it was the worst of times. An issue of such
magnitude usually generates more heat then light, and it readily became the age of foolishness.
Fortunately, however, the subject arose in the best of times. The Ohio State Bar association had
an able and distinguished trial lawyer in the presidency in the person of William L. Howland,
and he had the support, advice and counsel of an Executive committee composed of highly
competent lawyers, many of whom also had extensive trial experience. One of these was Victor
DeMarco of the prestigious Cleveland firm of Jones, Day, Revis and Pogue. DeMarco chaired
the special sub-committee of the Executive Committee which dealt with his highly explosive
proposal. The proponents of the bill were represented by an equally competent array of talent.
Thus, it can fairly be said that it was the age of wisdom.
To the credit of both rival groups, an effective compromise was worked out. It safeguarded
the inherent right of an injured person to seek redress, while affording reasonable protection to
the deliverers of health care.
***
The Ohio Legal Services Fund, created during the administration of Robert D. Moss in 1969,
achieved its most significant breakthrough in 1976 when a contract was negotiated with the City
of Columbus to provide prepaid legal services to 4,200 of its non-uniformed employees.
***
In order to augment the staff in dealing with unethical and unauthorized practice, James R.
McMahon was hired as an investigator. He had also been a fraud investigator for City National
Bank in Columbus.
The Age of the Specialist
Two issues debated nationally in bar circles occupied the attention of President Howland and
other bar leaders. The first was the subject of specialization, which is not a novelty on the
American scene. In the old Shaker communities everyone was a specialist, and highly skilled.
The success of Shaker specialization is best evidence by the prices currently being paid for
Shaker products by modern connoisseurs and collectors of antiques. The medical profession was
quick to adopt specialization early in the twentieth century, and it was carried to such lengths
that general practitioners or family doctors virtually disappeared. Historically, the legal
profession recognized only admiralty and patent law as separate and distinct areas where lawyers
practiced to the exclusion of all other branches of the law. Now, however, with the
congressional, legislative, councilmanic, and bureaucratic mills grinding out their grist of laws
and regulations in stupendous volumes, specialization among those who must interpret, enforce
and defend against these measures follows almost as certainly as night follows day.
For lawyers, specialization presents a set of difficult problems: how does one become a
specialist? Who determines the qualifications? Must a person pass a test? How much of his time
must he devote to his field? And how shall be publicize the fact of his specialization? President
Howland appointed a blue ribbon committee, under the chairmanship of Thomas J. Heydinger of
Bellefontaine, to consider all of the ramifications of specialization. The work of this committee
will have a profound effect upon the practice of law in Ohio.
Compulsory CLE
Another controversial issue was compulsory continuing legal education. Prodded by the
remarks of the Chief Justice Warren Burger and others who raised questions concerning the
competency of the trial bar, bar associations across America entered into a period of self-
examination. They asked: are these charges true? How shall they be answered? And what steps
must be take to insure lawyer competency? Several states, notably Iowa and Minnesota, moved
to adopt compulsory programs of continuing legal education, with a minimum study requirement
to be met during fixed and relatively short periods of time. Ohio remains skeptical of the value of
compulsory CLE—perhaps because the CLE program conducted by the Ohio Legal Center
Institute is one of the best (and very likely the best) in the nation.
President Howland referred in his annual address to the high quality of the educational work
being done by the Ohio Legal Center Institute under the leadership of its Director, James L.
Young. Howland recognized the high quality of the Institute‘s continuing legal education
program, and its premier rank among like organizations in the country. He pointed out that over
4,000 Ohio lawyers had attended the various courses sponsored by the Institute during the past
year. In addition, the Update program (launched in the administration of past President Rudolph
Janata) had become an integral feature of Association conventions. Under it, lawyers, through
lectures and the printed word, are brought up-to-date on the latest development in case and
statutory law.
***
The Ohio State Bar Association convened its Annual meeting in Columbus on May 7, 1975.
The Franklin County Hall of Justice and the new State Office Tower had both just been
completed, and were open for inspection by the lawyers and their wives. A special feature of the
meeting was the dedication of the Ohio Supreme Court headquarters in the Tower. Participants
were: Chief Justice C. William O‘Neill; President William L. Howland; and the former Solicitor
General of the United States, Erwin N. Griswold, whose father, James H. Griswold, had been a
distinguished member of the Cleveland bar.
The convention concluded with the Annual Banquet, which was addressed by John L.
Pinkerton of Coleraine, Northern Ireland, a past President of the Incorporated Law Society of
Northern Ireland. The Ohio Bar Medal, given in recognition of distinguished service to the
profession, the community, and humanity, was conferred on Robert Beirne of Cincinnati, A. P.
Feldman of Akron, the writer, and William R. Van Aken of Cleveland. Daniel I. Rosenthal of
Springfield became President, and Jamille Jamra of Toledo was chosen President-Elect by
acclamation.
Taking Stock
The Annual Meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association for 1976 was held in Cleveland, in the
luxurious, new Bond Court Hotel at East 6th Street and St. Clair Avenue, only a few hundred
yards from the site of Case Hall, where the Association was founded.
Gary n. Hunt had just joined the staff as Director of Media Relations. Hunt had done public
relations work for the City of Columbus, and had also helped write and edit the Ohio
Contractors Magazine.
The activities of the Ohio State Bar Association for 1975-76 were best characterized by
President Daniel I. Rosenthal of Springfield when he stated in his report to the membership,
―New projects as such would be held to a minimum. It would be a time for consolidation,
reorganization, and reordering of our priorities…‖ This was the plan that he announced when he
took office on July 1, 1975.
It was a wise plan, for it was indeed a time for reflection. The medical malpractice bill, which
had occupied so much of the Association‘s time during the administration of President William
L. Howland, became law July 8, 1975. Among other things, it directed the Ohio Supreme Court
to promulgate a schedule of maximum contingent fees that could be charged in a medical
malpractice case. It was a deliberate attempt by one branch of the state government to interfere
with the Supreme Court‘s exclusive power to regulate the practice of law. The Executive
Committee adopted and submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court a resolution decrying the
increasing encroachments upon the rights, duties and responsibilities of the legal profession and
the public, and suggested that such a rule would be a direct assault from the Ohio Constitution.
The federal government was also increasing its pressure for the enactment of no-fault automobile
insurance. The Association therefore joined with many other bar groups to oppose no-fault
legislation in the Congress. As a result, the proposed bill was sent back to committee.
Lawyer Advertising
In 1975, the American Bar Association‘s Committee on Ethics and Professional
Responsibility proposed certain amendments to the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility,
which in effect would have removed all viable restrictions on advertising by lawyers. These
proposals came in the wake of the U. S. Supreme Court‘s decision in the case of Bates and
Osteen vs. State Bar of Arizona.
President Rosenthal appointed a special committee to study these proposals, and the
committee recommended that the Ohio State Bar Association urge the ABA to reject the draft
under consideration. Numerous other state and local bar associations took similar positions. As a
result, the draft eventually adopted by the ABA was a substantially modified version of the
original proposals.
The Federal Trade Commission intruded into the lawyer-advertising picture by proposing its
own regulations on advertising by the professions. The Association strongly—and
successfully—opposed this action. President Rosenthal prophesied, ―Further efforts will be made
to transform us from the noble profession that we are to mere hucksters.‖ He then called upon all
lawyers to join with the Association in its continuing struggle to protect the public, against
commercialization of professional services.
***
The convention closed by bestowing honors upon two distinguished lawyers. Myron W.
Ulrich was awarded the Ohio Bar Medal, and James F. Preston, Jr., having retired from the
position of Chairman of the Board of OBAR, was recognized for his tremendous contribution t
that organization.
***
It was characteristic of Dan Rosenthal to say that as long as he had strength he would serve
the Association and the profession. Sadly, his service was cut short by his untimely death just
four days before the expiration of his term.
Communications
In May 1976 when Jamille G. Jamra accepted the gavel symbolic of the presidency of the
Ohio State Bar Association, he stated that one of his goals would be to improve communications
between the legal profession and the public, and between the Association and its members.
A significant step in improving communications with the public was the Midwest Regional
Conference on law-related education at Cincinnati. Co-sponsored by the Ohio State Bar
Association, the American Bar Association, and the Ohio Department of Education, the purpose
of the conference was to acquaint teachers with methods and materials calculated to instill pupils
with a better understanding of our laws and our legal system. This program was (and it)
nationwide in scope and the Cincinnati meeting attracted teachers from Ohio, Michigan, and
Kentucky.
In September 1976 the Association, in order to improve communications between it and the
membership at large, sponsored a meeting for lawyers, judges, and law school faculty at the
Proctor Conference Center near London, Ohio. Past President Walter Porter of Dayton chaired
the committee which planned and carried out the program. The purpose of the conference was
largely self-examination, and discussion centered on ways and mans to improve the
Association‘s service to the membership, to update its programs, and to find solutions for the
many problems confronting the legal profession.
The 1970‘s were a time of proliferating litigation. Most numerous among the cases taxing the
capacity of the courts were those in the fields of products liability and malpractice. Under the
leadership of the Ohio State Bar Association, lawyers from both sides of the trial table met to
discuss the problems and review legislative proposals. President Jamra appointed a special
committee on substantive changes in tort law, with Leslie Jacobs of Cleveland as Chairman. The
committee was divided equally between plaintiff and defense counsel. It made a significant
contribution by preparing and submitting to the legislature a comprehensive statement of the law
of Ohio in the area of products liability. With the aid of this summary, a bill was prepared and
introduced in the 1977 session of the General Assembly, but it failed of passage.
The Chimera of Merit Selection
The Modern Courts Committee continued to move slowly toward its elusive goal of merit
selection for the appellate courts and the Ohio Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Executive
Committee sought, as a temporary solution, the creation of an Ohio Judicial Commission to
screen and rate candidates for the Supreme Court and publicize these ratings.
An obstacle which constantly arises to impede the adoption of merit selection of Ohio courts
is the performance of the occasional judge who is appointed to the federal court for political
services rendered, and becomes an autocrat. The public does not distinguish the difference
between the federal machinery for judicial appointments, and the machinery embodied in the socalled Missouri plan advocated by the Association‘s Modern Courts Committee. A bright spot in
President Jamra‘s administration was the adoption of a proposal for a federal nominating
commission. This commission, jointly sponsored by the Ohio State Bar Association and Senators
John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, would screen and submit to the President the names of
qualified persons for appointment t the federal courts and to the United States Attorney‘s office
in Ohio.
Securing Broad Input on Legislative Program
Another positive step during this year was the liaison which Robert Manning, the Director of
Public Affairs for the Association, sought to establish with local bar associations in the area of
legislative activity. Manning‘s principal function with the Association was to follow in the
legislature those bills on which the Association had taken a position or which would affect the
practice of law or the courts. Because Ohio is a diverse state, it is reasonable to expect that
lawyers and bar associations in different parts of the state would have differing views on
legislation. Manning invited the local bar associations of Ohio to familiarize themselves with
pending bills of interest to lawyers and to communicate their views to him for presentation to the
Executive Committee. Being thus involved in the decision-making process, representatives of the
bar associations in the home districts of the legislators were able to exercise considerable
influence on their representatives and senators in behalf of the Association‘s position on
measures pending in the General Assembly.
***
President Jamra summarized the accomplishments and goals of the Association in his annual
address, and at the same time sounded a caveat, ―There is evidence mounting daily of a fast-
growing effort to remove the lawyer from the procedures designed to resolve controversies and,
what‘s more, to deter the lawyer in his traditional and fundamental role of protecting the rights of
each individual. An unfettered and free legal profession is an essential to the protection of basic
freedoms as is an unfettered and free press. We are most vulnerable when we become smug and
content with our lot.‖
Supreme Court Justice Leonard J. Stern was named the recipient of the Ohio Bar Medal, the
highest honor granted by the Ohio State Bar Association. Justice Stern served with distinction on
the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, the 10th District Court of Appeals and the Ohio
Supreme Court. Upon his retirement, Stern was appointed the first disciplinary counsel to the
Supreme Court.
Advertising
Shortly before Sam D. Bartlo of Akron assumed the office of Association President, the U. S.
Supreme Court, in a sharply-divided decision, shattered the long-standing prohibition against
advertising by members of the bar. Lawyers were now free to join the ranks of merchants,
tradesmen, peddlers and drummers in hawking their wares in the media. It presented a difficult
challenge to the organized bar, and the Ohio State Bar Association moved quickly to meet it.
Guidelines regulating lawyer advertising were drafted, and were adopted by the Ohio Supreme
Court. Ohio was the first state to permit advertising in all types of media, including newspapers,
radio and television. The style and content of the ads was, however, strictly controlled.
Advertising of another type had been under consideration by the Ohio State Bar Association.
The 1976 Proctor Conference had suggested the need for the Association to acquaint the public
with the need for consultation with lawyers. Many years earlier, the Association had advertised
the annual legal check-up program in the media. Now, it was time for more action, and the
Council of Delegates in November 1977 approved the Proctor Conference recommendations and
mandated an institutional advertising program. The Council also approved a $10 per year dues
increase (for one year) to finance the advertising campaign. Institutional advertising was a new
venture for the Ohio State Bar Association, and the Executive Committee was determined to
keep it on a high plane. The Fahlgreen & Ferris Advertising Agency of Cincinnati was retained
to organize and carry out the program. Spot announcements on television and advertisements in
the newspapers were the vehicles used to tell the bar‘s story to the public. The subjects featured
were wills, real estate transactions, and prepaid legal services. The content of the various
advertisements was developed and perfected after consultation with local bar officers and
participants at district meetings.
***
Continued promotion of the Prepaid Legal Services plan was an important project in President
Bartlo‘s program. A full-time field representative, Carl Retter, was hired to travel the state
explaining the plan to interested groups, and to assist Jay B. Ellis, Director of Professional
Services, who was instrumental in starting the plan. The importance of the open-panel plan was
stressed, under which the individual is free to select a lawyer, in contrast to closed=panel plans in
which the client must use a lawyer already chosen.
The Media
Several events took place in 1978-79 which were calculated to improve relations between the
bar and the media. Internally, the Ohio State Bar Association instituted a program entitled, ―Law
in Action.‖ The publicity attendant upon the Bates and O’Steen decision triggered a barrage of
questions about law and lawyers. Under the ―Law in Action‖ program, members of the public
could send in questions on the multitude of legal problems which confront the average citizen,
and would receive a prompt answer. Here was another example of a service to the public by the
organized bar.
Another public service accomplishment was in the field of courtroom coverage by the media.
Chief Justice C. William O‘Neill had long been concerned about the need to promote informed,
accurate reporting of trials in Ohio courts. He therefore organized a seminar on the subject in
Columbus, attended by approximately 100 journalists. Lectures were given and discussions held
on court procedure and on methods of reporting the progress of trials. It was so successful that a
second one was scheduled.
Law-Related Education
Nationally, law-related education was being stressed. Ohio was already deeply involved in the
subject—The Ohio State Bar Foundation had made two grants to Ashland College to support a
program under which area high school teachers and Ashland College students learned about the
legal system. The program was been expanded under the direction of Michael McKinley, an
Ashland attorney, and his wife, who is a school teacher.
The Ohio State Bar Association had a Special Committee for Law-Related Education, chaired
by Dean Richard Braun of the University of Dayton Law School. The initial thrust of the
committee‘s work was to develop lines of communication between the bar and the educators of
the state. The Association had already distributed a book entitled, The Law and You, to the public
schools of Ohio. The book, written by Thomas R. Swisher, Research Director of the Ohio State
Bar Foundation, was designed to fill the need for a survey of the law for non-lawyers. Most
important, The Law and You is written in terms readily understandable by young people. The
book has now experienced several reprintings, since approximately 16,000 copies are distributed
annually.
***
The complaint has often been heard of a lack of communication between the Ohio State Bar
Association and the local bar associations. The same complaint gave rise to the Council of
Delegates in the early 1920;‘s, and one of the avowed purposes of the Ohio BAR when it was
established in 1928 was to open communications between the Columbus headquarters and the
lawyers throughout Ohio. In 1957 a new publication, The Ohio Lawyer, was inaugurated in an
effort to bridge the alleged gap, but the same objection was still heard and publication
accordingly ceased.
President Bartlo tried a new approach, by scheduling an Executive Committee meeting in his
hometown of Akron, and inviting representatives of the Akron, Portage County, and Stark
County Bar Associations to attend and participate. A similar meeting was held in Columbus with
officers of the Columbus Bar Association in attendance. Perhaps it was only a coincidence, but
the Local Bar Officers Conference in November 1977 attracted the largest attendance in almost
twenty years.
Other moves to improve communications were the revision of the cover of the Ohio BAR, and
the expansion of old features and the addition of new features. One of these, ―The Legisletter,‖
was designed to furnish more information concerning the status of bills of interest to lawyers in
the General Assembly. Another was the institution of a column entitled, ―Attitudes and
opinions.‖ Its purpose was to invite letters and comments from readers.
A New Tack
During the entire existence of the Ohio State Bar Association, the profession has been plagued
by the judicial selection controversy. For the past twenty-five years the Association had gone to
the legislature in each biennium with a merit selection proposal. There has always been,
however, a deep-seated opposition in the General Assembly to any move calculated to eliminate
an elective judiciary. The realization of this stark fact finally bore down in the Modern Courts
Committee and, therefore, the decision was made to by-pass the legislature and undertake an
initiative petition campaign to get the issue before the people of Ohio.
Judicial Salaries
Merit selection was not the only egg in the legislative basket of the Ohio State Bar
Association. Seven bills sponsored by the Association became law during 1978. Among them
was a bill to increase judicial salaries, long a favored project of the state bar. Much credit for this
success was due James McIntire, who was hired in 1977 to succeed Robert Manning as the
legislative director for the Ohio State Bar Association.
SPIRIT
The problem of financing political activity of organizations has always been difficult. In the
early 1960‘s certain trade and professional organizations set up political action committees to
raise funds for campaigns to protect their interests in the Congress and the state legislatures. The
Ohio State Bar Association entered this field when it authorized the creation of a separate
organization to be known as ―SPIRIT.‖ With the establishment of SPIRIT the Ohio State Bar
Association‘s legislative efforts were assured of adequate financing.
***
President Bartlo was able to report prosperity on another front. One thousand new members
were added to the Association‘s rolls during 1977-1978, and the Association‘s membership was
now over 15,600—an increase of 6,400 members since 1962, when the Legal Center was
opened. The large membership, however, required a larger staff to serve their needs, and the
space in the Ohio Legal Center was no longer adequate. Accordingly, exploratory steps were
authorized to seek workable solutions to the problem.
The 1978 convention was held at Stouffer‘s Inn at Dayton. The recently-constructed hotel is
the center of a convention complex in a large urban renewal area, which revitalized the
downtown area of the Gem City. Two lawyers were honored with the Ohio Bar Medal in
Dayton: Merritt W. Green of Toledo, and Robert D. Moss of Barberton. Each was a past
President of the Ohio State Bar Association and of his local bar association.
OBLIC
The aging Commodore Perry Motor Inn in Toledo was the scene of the 99th Annual Meeting
of the Ohio State Bar Association in May, 1979. Perhaps ―aging‖ is not a truly descriptive word
for the inn—Mark Russell, the brilliant political satirist who entertained the convention visitors
at the Annual Banquet, said that The Commodore Perry was never new. In any event, the
renowned hospitality of the Toledo lawyers and their ladies more than made up for any
shortcomings of the accommodations.
President John M. Adams reported a year of singular and substantial accomplishment to the
membership. Perhaps most significant was the incorporation of the Ohio Bar Liability Insurance
Company (OBLIC). For a number of years Ohio lawyers had been forced to pay increasing
premiums for their malpractice insurance, even though there was little evidence that claims
experience against Ohio lawyers justified the increases. Furthermore, fewer companies were
writing liability insurance, thus creating a crisis of supply. By creating its own insurance
company the Ohio State Bar Association performed a much needed service for its members, and
restored competition to the market place. An immediate, positive result was that one insurance
company (a major supplier of malpractice insurance) reduced its premium after the
announcement of the organization of the Ohio Bar Liability Insurance Company.
Initiative Petitions
The campaign for merit selection of judges took a step forward with the decision to place the
issue on the ballot via the initiative route. A new organization to augment the work of the
Modern Courts Committee was created, and called, ―Ohioans for Merit Selection of Judges.‖
Don W. Montgomery of Lima was appointed as its chairman. An office was opened in
Columbus, and David Frank was hired to manage the campaign. Offers of support quickly came
from the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, the Ohio Parent-Teachers Association, the Ohio League
of Women Voters, the Ohio division of the American Association of University Women, the
Citizens League of Greater Cleveland, and many important Ohio newspapers. It began to appear
that the time of the idea first officially broached by President Simeon M. Johnson in 1913 had
come, but it was not so. The drive to obtain the requisite number of signatures on the petitions
fell short and merit selection of judges remained a dream.
***
The institutional advertising program was inaugurated in Ohio newspapers, in TV Guide, and
on Ohio television stations. A survey indicted that the advertisements were seen by over
6,000,000 Ohioans. The American Bar Association granted an Award of Merit to the Ohio State
Bar Association for this project.
The subject of specialization by lawyers was thoroughly studied by a committee headed by
Thomas E. Heydinger of Bellefontaine. A comprehensive report, with recommendations for
certification, was submitted to the members of the Association for their consideration and
comments, but certain objections were raised which necessitated further study.
The Client Security Fund continued its work of reimbursing clients who suffered losses as the
result of defalcations by their attorneys. Experience showed that many of these losses were
traceable directly to the attorneys‘ entanglement with liquor or drugs, and a committee was
formed to develop ways and means of assisting lawyers enmeshed in problems of this type.
A New Printing Plant
The rapid growth of the Association, and the resultant expansion of its activities, plus the
obsolescence of the Norwalk plant, made it necessary to seek other arrangements for printing the
Ohio BAR. This unique and useful periodical had been printed at Norwalk for over forty years,
but its facilities were now taxed to the breaking point. Moreover, the in-house printing plants of
the Ohio Legal Center Institute and the Association were now inadequate. The Ohio State Bar
Foundation‘s rapidly growing research program required increased printing services, which were
simply not available from existing facilities. According, to meet these insistent demands, the
Association contracted to purchase the Ohio Printing Company, Ltd. in Columbus. The modern,
complete equipment of this company‘s plant will enable the Association to improve vastly its
services in the area of publications.
***
Disrespect for law, the courts, and the judicial system is a problem today as it was when
President Harlan F. Burket addressed himself to the subject in 1914. Under the leadership of
John M. Adams, affirmative steps were undertaken in 1979 t do something about the problem.
The Ohio Center for Law-Related Education was formed as an Ohio non-profit corporation. Its
function will be to develop a course of instruction for students in the primary and secondary
schools, designed to teach them the rudimentary principles of our system of justice. A committee
under the leadership of Dean Richard L. Braun, of the University of Dayton School of Law, had
worked for more than a year to develop the law-related education plan. Coincidentally, an award
was presented to Michael McKinley, representing the Ashland County Bar Association, for that
organization‘s work in setting up a model program of law-related education for the school
teachers of Ashland County.
For the first time in memory, the Ohio State Bar Association convention program included an
education session for legal secretaries. The year marked the beginning of a cooperative effort
between the Ohio State Bar Association and the Ohio Association of Legal Secretaries.
The Toledo convention featured another innovation. The highly successful UPdate program
was presented in a new format. In lieu of personal appearances, the lecturers presented their
subjects on video tape.
Loren E. Souers of Canton was chosen President-Elect without opposition at the meeting. The
winners of the Ohio Bar Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the Association, were John
Eckler and J. Paul McNamara, both of Columbus. Eckler, a member of the firm of Bricker, Evatt,
Barton & Eckler, was honored for his service as President of the Columbus Bar Association,
President of the Ohio State Bar Foundation, Chairman of the National Conference of Bar
Examiners, chairman of several American Bar Association committees, and Trustee of Ohio
Wesleyan University. McNamara served forty years on the Board of Trustees of Miami
University, and was its chairman from 1965 to 1967. He was President of the Alumni
Associations of both Miami University and the Ohio State University College of Law. He
organized the Junior Bar Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association, and became its first
chairman. McNamara was a member of the Ohio Board of Bar Examiners, and a prolific legal
author.
The End of the First Century
When Joseph A. Oths of Wellston took office as President on July 1, 1979, at the beginning of
the final year of the first century of the Ohio State Bar Association, it was a time to look back,
and President Oths and his fellow leaders of the Association could be pardoned if they did so
with nostalgia. The past appeared in a very pleasant light compared to the thorny path which
could be seen ahead. But if the hundredth year is a time to bask in the past, it is also a time to
prepare to solve the problems which lie in the future. This was the course taken by President
Oths, the Executive Committee, and the staff of the Association.
The problems of 1979 and 1980 were both multiple in number and monumental. To combat
skyrocketing malpractice premiums, the Ohio Bar Liability Insurance had been organized in the
previous year. By July 1979 capitalization had been completed, and the draft of the policy had
been approved. Much work remained to be done, however, including the hiring of competent
personnel to operate the company.
On the legislative front the omnipresent issue of merit selection of judges continued to pose a
dilemma. The House Judiciary Committee approved the Association-sponsored resolution by a
vote of six to four, but as it turned out that was only a milestone on a dead-end road. As
insurance, the Association was also pushing the merit selection initiative, and President Oths
issued an urgent call to all volunteers to complete and return their initiative petitions. When the
filing deadline arrived, however, and in spite of heroic efforts by Bruce Petrie, Earl F. Morris and
William Milligan, the petition drive fell short. Merit selection in Ohio was again in limbo.
The Federal Trade Commission sent out questionnaires to the bar associations of the nation.
To put it conservatively, the questionnaires were all-inclusive. The apparent goal of the
Commission was regulation of the practice of law by the federal government. As far as
regulation of the profession was concerned, however, an excellent job was being done in Ohio.
The model disciplinary rule adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court had now been in effect more
than twenty years. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline was doing a
thorough job in bringing malfactors to book—Ohio was accounting for approximately one-eighth
of all disbarments and indefinite suspensions in the nation. The Ohio State Bar Association was
demonstrating, clearly and unequivocally, that it was determined to keep its house in order, and
that it was equal to the task.
The continuous, two-year sessions of the legislature have been a constant concern to all
Ohioans, but are especially troublesome to the lawyers of the state, whose profession requires
them to be part and parcel of the law-marking process. The endless flood of bills, regularly
reported in the Ohio BAR, requires close surveillance by the staff of the Association. A
governmental affairs department was established during the administration of Daniel Rosenthal.
William K. Weisenberg and Robert E. Fletcher were hired in 1979 to replace James D. McIntire
and Frank Pittman. Weisenberg was named Director of Governmental Affairs, and Fletcher was
appointed to the position of Legislative Counsel. Their weekly reports of bills introduced or
enacted into law serve a very useful purpose for the readers of the Ohio BAR.
Another of the problems which faced the new administration revolved around the printing
company acquired during the presidency of John M. Adams. The acquisition was actually the
solution to a problem, because the Norwalk plant was no longer capable of handling the
increasing workload. Nevertheless, the purchase of the new plant required a large financial
commitment by the Association, and this in turn necessitated extremely tight budgeting for other
activities. The added financial requirements of The Ohio Bar Liability Insurance Company, plus
unprecedented demands on the Clients‘ Security Fund (which began when coverage was
extended to lawyers who were not members of the Association), called for careful, prudent fiscal
programming.
One very pleasant result of the purchase of the printing plant, however, was the publication of
a thoroughly revised and highly readable Ohio BAR. From the time of its first publication in
1927, and with the exception of a change in color from gray to green, the exterior format had
remained substantially unchanged. On October 1, 1979, however, William C. Moore, Editor of
the Ohio BAR, proclaimed that all future issues would be printed and published by the Ohio
Printing Company, Ltd. of Columbus, with improved paper quality and more readable type style.
The new Ohio BAR made its first appearance on October 8, 1979.
The final issue of the Old Ohio BAR carried a long-awaited announcement—the Ohio Bar
Liability Insurance Company was open for business, with an office on Old West Henderson
Road in Columbus. The announcement brought an immediate response from one of the private
insurance companies which attempted to show that the services of the new company were not
really competitive. It could not, however, hide the fact that with the formation of the Ohio Bar
Liability Insurance Company, the private insurers quickly adjusted their premiums downward.
No reference to the Ohio Bar Liability Company should be made without paying a tribute to
Jay Ellis. Anyone affiliated with the Ohio State Bar Association in the 1970‘s is familiar with his
excellent work. A thorough student of the law and a master of detail, he applied his knowledge
and skill to the organization, development and opening for business of the insurance company,
and every lawyer in Ohio therefore owes him a debt of gratitude. Moreover, his ability and
perseverance made the Association‘s prepaid legal service plan a reality. Ellis left the State Bar
Office in the fall of 1979 to go to California. He earned the profound respect and deep
appreciation of all who worked with him, and his departure was a loss to the Association.
Another matter of recurring concern was the influx of a host of new lawyers. The July bar
examination was administered to 1,379 persons, of whom 1,221 (88.5%) were successful. The
thrill of success for these young people was soon replaced by the realities of job hunting in a
buyers‘ market. Is there a relationship between the large number of new lawyers and the large
number of disciplinary cases referred to above? Are the law schools accepting too many
applicants? These subjects deserve the most searching and careful study by the bar generally.
All news was not bad on the legal horizon. A survey by Altman and Weil, Inc. of Ardmore,
Pennsylvania, revealed that newly-graduated attorneys in corporate legal departments were
receiving an average salary of $21,750, and the possibilities for raises were good. The average
salary for the head of the legal department in all reporting corporations was $78,844, plus an
average bonus of $18,213.
A Time for Sober Reflection
November always brings one of the most pleasant and memorable activities of the State Bar,
the annual Meeting of the Fellows of the Ohio State Bar Foundation. In 1979, Foundation
President Bitner Browne of Springfield presided over one of the largest meetings of the
organization in recent years. Well-deserved honors were extended to Earl F. Morris and retired
Justice Leonard J. Stern, both of Columbus. Morris was recognized for his contributions to the
legal profession through research and service. Stern received the award for devotion to the
highest principles and traditions of the legal profession for more than fifty years. A plaque was
presented to John Eckler of Columbus honoring him for his service as President of the
Foundation during the two preceding years.
The speaker for the banquet was Senator John Glenn, whose appearance was most timely. He
had recently made headlines by announcing his opposition to the proposed Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty with the Soviet Union. His position was based upon what he termed the
absence of any effective means of ascertaining whether the Soviet Union was, in fact, complying
with the terms of the treaty. While Senator Glenn was speaking, more than sixty Americans were
being held captive in the United States Embassy in Teheran, Iran, which had been overrun by a
mob of militant Iranian students. While the Americans languished in captivity, the attitude and
activity of the U. S. State Department could be described most charitably as, ―helpless.‖ Glenn
related that one of the people being held was from Dayton, Ohio, and his parents had frantically
implored the State Department to take action. They were told that nothing could be done and,
totally frustrated, the parents appealed to a Dayton radio station for assistance. Undaunted by the
request, the station used the simple expedient of telephoning the embassy. Incredibly, the
connection was made and the news relayed that the Dayton prisoner was safe.
In Celebration of a Century of Service
As the Annual Meeting of the Association began to loom on the horizon, news items appeared
in the Ohio BAR concerning plans for the Centennial. An attractive logo depicting the scales of
justice and the anniversary slogan, ―A Century of Service,‖ headlined the cover of the magazine.
Several inquiries aimed at locating lawyer-descendants of the farsighted men who gathered in
Cleveland on July 8, 1880, brought forth George H. Bowman, Jr. of Salem, Robert Critchfield of
Wooster, Rufus S. Day, Jr. of Cleveland, Frederick Oxley and William T. Oxley of Ashland,
Garver Oxley and Michael Oxley of Findlay, and Tom Taggart of Adrian, Michigan, whose
ancestors were among the charter members of the Ohio State Bar Association.
A search was also conducted to ascertain the number of law firms whose origins go back to
1880 or before. At least twenty-nine such organizations have presented authenticated credentials
to establish that they are more than 100 years old. One of them, the Portsmouth firm of Bannon,
Howland, McCurdy, Dever & Mearan, traces its founding to 1827, when William V. Peck
opened an office in that city, and quickly established himself as a leading citizen of the
community. In 1832 he delivered the principal address when the Ohio Canal, joining Lake Erie
and the Ohio River, was opened. Eleven years later he gave the address of welcome when former
President John Quincy Adams visited Scioto County. Evidently he did an eloquent job, because
he was appointed to the committee to welcome the hero of Vera Cruz, General Zachary Taylor,
when he visited Portsmouth on his way to Washington for his inauguration as President of the
United States. Peck‘s career in the law led him to the Scioto County Common Pleas bench, and
to the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Peck‘s direct descendant, Lewis D. Bannon, was the senior
partner of the firm until his recent retirement. He still resides in Portsmouth.
Another Centennial feature of the Ohio BAR was a series of articles describing famous Ohio
court cases. These articles, written by Ohio lawyers, appeared intermittently during the 100th
anniversary year.
Special features of the 100th Annual Meeting included the dedication of a plaque on the
southeast corner of the United States Court House in Cleveland, which stands on the site of Case
Hall where the Ohio State Bar Association was founded. Souvenir medals were given to each
convention registrant, along with a book containing a picture and a brief history of each of
Ohio‘s eighty-eight county court houses. As a salute to the past, the mid-nineteenth century law
office at the Ohio Village in Columbus was reopened.
***
With the end of another convention, new leaders of the Ohio State Bar Association took over
and looked forward to a new year and a new century. President Joseph Oths could pass the gavel
to his successor, Loren E. Souers of Canton, knowing that his had been a year of continued
success and that the future would bring new challenges, new ideas and new people to carry on
the important work of one of America‘s greatest professional organizations, the Ohio State Bar
Association.
EPILOGUE
THE SECOND CENTURY
“… I leave you to consider whether your own interests, the interests of those who
are leaning upon you, as the whole community does and must, the interests of the
great state you inhabit … do not all demand that you should concur … in
supplying worthy associates while you live and in providing worthy successors
when you and I have passed away …”
Rufus P. Ranney
***
The past is the prelude to the future. A century is only a split-second on the time cock of the
universe, but it represents more than half of the recorded history of Ohio‘s statehood. During the
100 years of the existence of the Ohio State Bar Association, it has played a major role in
shaping the laws and the court system of the Buckeye State. The corporation code, the probate
code, the criminal code, and the judicial article of the Ohio Constitution are only a few among
the major work-products of dedicated Ohio lawyers who devoted untold amounts of their time
and talents to the accomplishment of these worthy objectives.
The names which have appeared and reappeared on the preceding pages are those of some of
Ohio‘s greatest citizens. The wisdom, dedication, and high character of these men in the courts
of law, the halls of government of the state and nation, and the councils of the legal profession,
stand out like a great light, beckoning those who follow them at the bar of Ohio to emulate their
examples of service: They bear great names—to recall only a few: Rufus P. Ranney; William
McKinley; William R. Day; Luther Day; Samuel R. Williamson; Jacob D. Cox; T. A. Minshall;
George K. Nash; George Hoadly; James R. Garfield; John A. Schauck; Stanley Mathews;
William Howard Taft; Robert A. Taft; John W. Bricker; Judson Harmon; William L. Hart;
Newton D. Baker; Howard L. Barkdull; Paul C. Weick; and Earl F. Morris. All of them were
members of—and leaders in—the Ohio State Bar Association. They are men to whom their
successors in the Association can point with pride. The contributions of these men to the well-
being of their state, their nation, and their profession, are unmatched by the representatives of
any other profession.
There are some causes for regret. Far too many lawyers disregard the admonition of Theodore
Roosevelt that, ―Every man owes some of his time to the upbuilding of the profession to which
he belongs.‖ The task of leadership belongs to those whose maturity and experience qualify them
for it. Many have unselfishly and unhesitatingly accepted their responsibility but, unfortunately,
they are a minority of the profession. Where are the majority? Why are they not participating in
the work of the organized bar? This is a continuing challenge facing the profession n the next
century.
In a tribute to the late Howard L. Barkdull by The American Judicature Society, are these
words: ―He is a living exemplification of how a responsible lawyer should participate as a
citizen, as an attorney, as a member of his profession and as an officer of the court working for
the improvement of the administration of justice.‖ The Association must see that the same can
truthfully be said of more and more lawyers in the second century of service.
Two lines of Carmen Ohio, the alma mater of The Ohio State University, read: ―The seasons
pass, the years will roll; time and change will surely show …‖ The message of the lines is our
challenge, as the Ohio State Bar Association‘s membership, nearly 16,000 strong, looks forward
to the next 100 years. Will we carry on the successful programs handed on to us by our
predecessors? Will we seek out new ideas and new ideals to lead the people of the Buckeye State
in the never-ending search for improvement in the administration of justice? The issue is clear
and the challenge real, and the answer is—We can and we must.
William R. Van Aken
Cut lines for photos
CASE HALL
Cleveland, Ohio
Case Hall was the site of the first meeting of the Ohio State Bar Association in July, 1880. Built
in 1867, it stood on the northwest corner of Superior Avenue and East Third Street in Cleveland,
and was the cultural center of the city for twenty years. The above drawing by artist Donald w.
Fickas was taken from a contemporary woodcut.
HOTEL VICTORY
Put-in-Bay, Lake Erie
The popular summer resort of Put-in-Bay in the Lake Erie Islands was the site of twenty-two
consecutive annual meetings of the Ohio State Bar Association from 1888 to 1909. Most of these
meetings were held in the Hotel Victory, shown above. Photos courtesy of the Ohio Historical
Society.
BREAKERS HOTEL
Cedar Point, Ohio
When Put-in-Bay was forsaken as its meeting place, the Ohio State Bar Association chose the
Breakers Hotel at the famous Cedar Point resort near Sandusky as the site for most of its annual
meetings from 1910 to 1934. Photo courtesy of the Ohio Historical Society.
HARTMAN BUILDING
Columbus, Ohio
The first ―permanent‖ headquarters of the Ohio State Bar Association were housed briefly in the
Hartman Building in 1919 and 1920, in space sublet from the law firm of Ballard, Price & Jones
for $20 per month.
STATE HOUSE ANNEX
Columbus, Ohio
Beginning in 1905 and continuing for about fourteen years at the sufferance of the Supreme
Court, the Ohio State Bar Association was allotted filing space in a corner of the Supreme Court
Library in the State House Annex, and was permitted the occasional use of a meeting room. The
Association‘s headquarters were moved to the Hartman Building for a short time, but were
moved back to the Annex in 1920 when John L. W. Henney, the Supreme Court Reporter, was
named Secretary of the Association. Henney remained Secretary until his death in 1950, and the
Association‘s offices remained in the Annex throughout his tenure and until 1961, when the
Ohio Legal Center was built.
OHIO LEGAL CENTER
Columbus, Ohio
The Ohio Legal Center is the present headquarters of the Ohio State Bar Association, the Ohio
Legal Center Institute, and the Ohio State Bar Foundation. The Center was completed in 1961 as
a joint project of the Association, the Foundation, and The Ohio State University, to provide a
law center for the people of Ohio. The building sits on University land and was built with funds
contributed to the Ohio State Bar Foundation by members of the bar of Ohio. The chief
benefactor was George W. Ritter of Toledo, whose gift amounted to one-quarter of the total
contributed.
RUFUS P. RANNEY
Of Cleveland, Ohio
First President of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1880-1881.
WILLIAM McKINLEY
Of Canton, Ohio
A distinguished member of the Ohio State Bar Association.
WILIAM HOWARD TAFT
Of Cincinnati, Ohio
A distinguished member of the Ohio State Bar Association.
JOSEPH A. OTHS
Of Wellston, Ohio
President of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1979-1980.
LOREN E. SOUERS
Of Canton, Ohio
President of the Ohio State Bar Association, 1980-1981.
JOSEPH B. MILLER
Of Columbus, Ohio
Executive Director of the Ohio State Bar Association in 1980.