¹ Laws of Ohio (1923), 364Google Scholar; Gen. Code, pp. 1928, 1697.

² Since 1923, substantially one-third of the states have adopted some form of judicial council. Though varying in powers, personnel, and immediate program of action, all are actuated by one common purpose—that of making an organized attempt to work out the judicial problems of the state through the united efforts of bench and bar. Whether they have been composed wholly of judges or of both judges and lawyers, there has resulted a systematic attempt to study the work of our courts with a view to improvement. In two states, lay representation is found in the judicial council; and in a number the attorney-general or a member of the general assembly is added. At this time, councils are in existence in Ohio, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, North Carolina, California, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Connecticut, Kansas, Virginia, Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Idaho, and Wisconsin.

³ For a review of the judicial council movement, see Grant, J. A. C., “The Judicial Council Movement,” in this Review, November, 1928Google Scholar. Cf. “The Judicial Council Movement Reviewed,” 13 Jour. Amer. Judic. Soc. 38–44 (Aug., 1929)Google Scholar; “Judicial Councils in Theory and Practice,” 42 Harv. Law Rev. 817–820 (Apr., 1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ The committee of direction is composed of Chief Justice Carrington T. Marshall of the supreme court, chairman of the judicial council; John A. Elden of the Cleveland bar; Leon C. Marshall and Hessel E. Yntema, professors of law at the Johns Hopkins University.

⁵ For example, the Ohio Institute, a research organization with offices in Columbus, has received an appropriation of $25,000 from the Bureau of Social Hygiene for a study of crime. This work will undoubtedly dovetail to some extent with that of the Institute of Law.

⁶ In discussing the matter, W. F. Willoughby says: “There is an almost complete absence of statistical data regarding the operation of courts in the adjudication of civil cases. Nor is there much in the way of consideration of the problem of devising and operating a system for the collection and presentation of such statistics.” Principles of Judicial Administration, 647. Albert Kocourek has also called attention to this dearth of statistical data in civil cases. See “The Need for Statistical Information in Civil Litigation,” Jour. Amer. Judic. Soc. (Apr., 1918)Google Scholar.

⁷ Criminal judicial statistics have received more attention. (See Willoughby, , Principles of Judicial Administration, 648–650Google Scholar). But even in this field much work must be done. Raymond Moley, in discussing the subject, says: “Such seanty reports as we have from a number of police departments, a few attorney-generals, and a few other officials are almost useless for comparative purposes. Records are likewise inadequate. A vast amount of criminal law administration is conducted without records. Much of the remainder is hidden in antiquated and inaccessible dockets, in irregularly filed court papers, and in the generally unintelligible and sometimes dishonest records of city police departments.” Politics and Criminal Prosecution, 35.

⁸ This is a tremendous task, and one which might easily meet with many difficulties under less fortunate circumstances. In the more populous counties, additional help in the clerk's office has already been required. The statute establishing the judicial council makes cooperation from such sources compulsory, not optional. This is important in getting the help of such officers. The fact that the survey is under the auspices of the judicial council and in active coöperation with the Bar Association gives greater possibility for the successful administration of it than any strictly private venture could hope to secure.

⁹ Ransom, W. L., “The Law's Delays—Causes and Remedies,” Proceedings of Acad. of Polit. Sci., vol. X, no. 3 (July, 1923), pp. 179–182Google Scholar; Robert F. Wagner, “The Law's Delays,” ibid., pp. 182-187.

¹⁰ Miller, Justin, “Activities of Bar Associations and Legislatures in Connection with Criminal Law Reform,” 18 Jour. Amer. Inst. Crim. Law and Criminol. 381 (Nov., 1927)Google Scholar.

¹¹ “No single agency,” declared Chief Justice Taft, “to induce Congress and the state legislatures to improve the administration of the criminal law could be more effective than the practical truth in respect to the condition of our courts in the prosecution of crime, and nothing could more stimulate a demand for greater speed in the disposition of civil cases in behalf of the litigating public than the truth as to the delays and congestion in the civil dockets.” Report of Federal Judicial Council, Attorney-General of U. S., Annual Report (1926), 7Google Scholar.

¹² First Report of the Judicial Council of California (1927), 29Google Scholar.

¹³ The data sheet for the appellate courts and supreme court will probably be put into operation by July 1.

¹⁴ This might include: (1) the judicial machine proper; (2) administrative commissions engaged in law administration; (3) the relationship of the executive branch to law administration; (4) the work of non-governmental agencies engaged in law administration. The studies of the judicial machine proper would include studies of the supreme court, the appellate courts, the common pleas courts, the probate courts, the municipal courts, the domestic relations courts, the conciliation courts, etc. Public utilities commissions, workmen's compensation commissions, and such administrative commissions concerned with law administration would also be studied. In studying the relationship of the executive law administration, special investigations might be made of the work of the governor, attorney-general, prosecutors, police, sheriff, and coroner. Non-governmental agencies engaged in judicial work which might be studied would include commercial arbitration boards, boards of trade, trade unions, etc.

¹⁵ This might involve: (1) the statistical studies already mentioned; (2) studies of the personnel aspects of judicial administration, i.e., selection, tenure, transfer, promotion, education, removal, etc.; (3) studies of the bar of the state, legal education, requirements for admission, activities of the State Bar Association and local bar associations, etc.; (4) special studies in the substantive law, e.g., installment contracts, small loans, incorporation acts, etc.; (5) special studies in the procedural field; (6) special studies of administration of criminal justice, either a series of dovetailing studies or a comprehensive survey; (7) studies of the physical surroundings of the courts, e.g., quarters, architecture, adequacy, appropriateness, etc.

¹⁶ The whole problem raised by suggestions of having “a unified court” or “a ministry of justice” might be considered. Proposed modification of existing judicial machinery might be studied, e.g., different use of grand and petit jury, possibilities of securing “expert” juries, greater use of commercialized arbitration, and specialized courts for special purposes.

¹⁷ Studies might be made in the field of juvenile delinquency, divorce, etc.; in the cost of litigation, visible and invisible, to the participants and to the state and community; the costs of corrective institutions; the costs of wasted man power, etc. The possibilities of psychology and psychiatry as tools to be used in the administration of justice might receive attention; also problems in connection with parole, probation, and penal institutions.