The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1893-07-03
THEGOYERN)R' 'SPOS|NON
he Contends That The Supreme Court
Cannot Interfere With His ACt.
GEN. CHARLES A. WILSON'S BRIEF.
strong Array of Authorities to show That
the Governors Action at Newport In
Proroging the General Assembly Cam
not be Reviewed by tho Supreme Court.


Wilson. who has prepared brief to sub
NIT to the supreme court, has stated his
understanding of he legal fore, of the
act by which he adjourned the general
assembly at Newport on June last
The ESSENTIAL portion Of Gen. Wilson's
brief is given herewith:
1t is understood that full arguments
are to be submitted upon each Of The
three propositions contained in the house
resolution. and have therefore conclud
ed to confine my suggestions largely to
the third question which reads:
Can the general assembly at the May session be
adjourned by the governor under the power
ferred upon him by section O. article 2. OF the con-
stfsuion, until after the two houses have Joined In
grand committee for the purpose OF counting and
declaring the votes cast for general oicers at the
preced ING April eection7
II is submitted that the third interrog-
atory raises the principal question TO be
determined by your honors. and one that
that Is decisive, raising sharply the ques-
tion OF the right or jurisdiction of the
judges Of the supreme court to pass upon
the question Of all.
INC Iriucipie EstaDusneu.
In Taylor a. Co. VS. Place 4th Rhode
Island, 324, Chief Justice Ames in an
opinion which seems to exhaust tn SUBJ
ject, classifies, and defines the various
powers OF the coordinate branches of our
state government under the constitution
as distinguished from the powers exer-
cised under the charter of the colony. He
says:
First. Section /. article w.. which declares
that "ths constitution shall be the supreme law OF
the state. and any law inconsistent herewith
sha be volde."
Second. Section I. Article III. which provide
that "the powers OF the government shall be III
tribated into three departments; the legislative
executive and judicial"
Third. Section 2. article w., which vests 1.-THE
legislative power, under this constitution, In two
houses. the one TO be called the senate aud the
other the house OF representatives. and both
together the general assembly"
Fourth Section 1. article VII. which vests "The
chief executive power of the state ia a governor.
who. together with ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. shall be
annually elected by the people"
FUth Section 1, art Gle X, which Is In these
words: "The judicial power Of this state shall be
vested In one supreme court. and in suca Inferior
courts as the general assembly may from time to
time. ordain and establish"
The question at issne in Taylor vs.
Place. rendered it necessary for the court
to define the power OF the Judicial and
legislative departments of he govern
ment,-at the same time the theory of
our state government, based upon the
constitution, received at the hands of
Chief Justice Ames most learned dis
cussion, particularly showing the limit
OF power confided TO each department
and as we'll to illustrate how absolutely in
dependent in their respective spheres each
department Is of the other, and the
unanswerable arguments of the opinion,
wherein he right of the general assembly
to trespass upon the judicial department
of the government, Is reiuted and
repudiated. well demonstra es the reason
why tie coordinate powers of the govern
ment should be protected in their
absolute independence. H. Is also an un-
answerable Argument upon principle, In
denial of the right of this court to inter-
lere with anv act of the executive OF the
state, wherein the exercise of such right.
or duty, Is conferred by the constitution
or laws.
Another way to State 1t.
The fundamental question here in
volved may be stated In another way,
viz: Has the judicial department OF the
overnm mt the constitutional right to
pass upon an act left by the constitution
or laws, absolutely to the determination
OF the executive?
Chief Justice Ames In Taylor vs.. Place
says that the opinion given by the jndges
under section 8, ar .icle X, of the copsti-
tuition, is not decision, and that it can
not have the weight of a precedent.
Notwithstanding thatjthis is SO, there
must be some limit to the right to de-
mand an opinion Of the judges of the
supreme court under the above article of
the constitution. Tn, constitution de-
clares that the judges shall give their
opinion upon any question # law"
when requested, etc. But it submit ted
that there are and must be questions of
law upon which neither the executive nor
the legislative department of the govern
ment has the right lin constitutional
sense) TO request of the judges their opin-
ion, ,(and ii there be questions thus limited,
this must be one OF them), and IL this
proposition tie correct, anu there is
limit to the right to require opinions
from the judges il would seem to follow
that the limit of the right to demand an
opinion Is also the limit of the right of
the judges to give one.
1t is respectfully submitted that no
other construction OF the above constitu-
tional provision is consistent with the
absolute independence of the respective
departments of our government as de-
clared in vast number Of thoroughly
considered cases. The fact that the
court has not in this case power to en-
force by decree or otherwise its opinion
cannot affect the principle involved, viz |:
That one department. of the government
is, and must be. protec ed from encroac.i.
meut by the others
solely the Governors Duty.
1t is confidently asserted that the pro-
clamation OF adjournment, upon the
facts set forth la the recorl, IL duty,
the exercise of which Is conferred solely
by constitutional provision, upon the
governor: that In this case the exercise
OF such power by him was thin the
technical Limitations Of the constitution !;
that the governor was bound TO look
atoue TO the certificate OF the scnate, uuti
I'm the exercise Of bis discretion TO adjourn
the general assembly. he cannot I've CON-
A. A Al.