The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-05-02

The full supreme court OF the state
In an opinion handed down today In the
case OF Joseph Floyd VS.. William Quinn.
decides that the dividing OF the supreme
court into common pleas and appellate
departments is constitutional.
This is a very important opinion. as
counsel not only in this case. but I'm that
OF Gum VS.. Union Railroad, In which a
verdict for $1,000 was given by a jury
and set aside by the appellate division,
argued that there was no right in one
part OF the court TO set aside the action
OF another part OF the court.
That is. that the supreme court was
not divisible for purposes OF review.
Chief Justice Stiness wrote the opinion
which contains about % typewriter
pages. The opinion agrees with what has
been the general understanding of the
bar as TO the subject, but a great deal
OF courteous attention is paid TO the adj
mittedly careful and able argument pre-
sented by the counsel who attacked the
consttutionality of the appellate division.
THE CASE STATED.
Tn the case before the court the defend
ant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs s
petition for new trial upon the alleged
ground that by the constitution of the
new trials for the causes contained in
plaintiffs petition, Is vested I'm the SUI
preme court. established by the constitu-
ton. court different from and superior
TO tho appellate division OF the supreme
court. which division cannot constitutions
ally exercise the Jurisdiction OF granting
new trials.
After quoting the state constitution in
regard to the establishment OF the SUI
preme court the chief justice briefly COM
pares IL with a like provision In the con-
stitution of the United States. and says:
"In both the vesting OF the judicial power
is plenary and exclusive but in ours the
mode and details of exercising the power
is left wholly 10 legisla ton. A constitu-
tion does not usually deal with details.
Numbers of judges. quorums. terms OF
court, regulation of process, attendance
OF juries, distribution OF jurisdiction and
numerous incidental matters must be
provided for by law. Hence nothing is
determined by our constitution beyond
the vesting OF complete judicial power
In the courts and the requirements that
there shall be one supreme court.
Taken I'm the order of a convenient
review, the defendants first proposi-
ton Is that the constitution, by creating
a supreme court, whereby, conferred upon
that court exclusive Jurisdiction. ex vi
termini to grant new trials, which Is the
power brought in question in this case,
and that this power cannot be taken
away or diminished.
1--WE do not question that in establish
ing a supreme court there Is something
i'm a name. The provision that there shall
be a supreme court clearly implies that
1t is not TO be subordinate TO any other
court or tribunal and that IL Is to ex-
ercise the highest judicial functions, of
course IL must issue prerogative writs,
make its own rules, and control its own
business. II Is TO be court OF last re-
sort.
PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE.
"It does not follow, however, that all
cases can go 10 that court by appeal or
petition, and that there can be no final
decision except by that court, II party
desires It, This is apparent both from
principle and practice.
There can be no claim that the vesting
of jurisdiction I'm the supreme court. In
our constitution, Is more imperative than
that in the federal constitution, since the
vesting clauses are substantially alike and
the clause relating To legislative regula-
ton is broader than In the latter"
Chief Justice stiness cites strong au-
thorities to show that the Jurisdiction OF
the federal supreme court can be regu-
lated by law. He also refers 10 several IN
stances where the congress has divided
eral courts. This comment In the course
OF opinion Is made ''rhe fallacy of the
defendants argument is in his assump-
ton that all appellate jurisdiction neces-
sarily goes 10 the supreme court. which,
as we have seen, is not so. au1 secondly
I'm his failure TO distinguish between the
exercise OF jurisdiction and the distribu-
tion OF jurisdiction"
As to fixed and special iurlstdiction
being given to the supreme co Irt. ~ con-
tended by defendants counsel. and that
this court has the same Jurisdiction az
the supreme judicial court" the chief jus
tice says I'VE have no hesitation In say
ing that this cannot be So either by the
terms OF the constitution or by the prac-
tico under H..
A QUALIFYING CLAUSE.
"'rhc defendant falls TO recognize the
qualifying clause: until otherwise pre-
scribed by the general assembly. He ar
gues as though these words were not
there or as II they relate only To the
| time and place OF holding the court The
words evidently qualify the whole section
| IL IL provision for carrying in the exist
| ing jurisdiction until otherwise prescrib-
ed .
| The chief justice then goes on TO show
that the words were used because new
regulations could not be made imme-
diately on the adoption or the consutu'
tlon. lie also holds that "a careful study
| o fthe noted case of Taylor vs.. Place
/ much relied upon by the defendant
! counsel shows that the jurisdiction OF
! the supreme judicial court was not vested
I'm the supreme court Many changes Ia
| regard 10 tho courts are noted in the
| opinion and good deal of attention Is
| paid TO the practice OF the state as TO the
| Keeping intact OF the jurisdiction Of thu
| supreme judicial court intact In the su
| preme court. Charges extending from
Immediately after the adoption OF the con
! stitution through the various revisions oi
| the laws that have been upheld by the
supreme court OF this state are dwell
Upon IL Is stated too. that from tn,
time of tho adoption of the constitution
10 the present time hardly n session of thu
legislature has been held In which SONS
| change has not been made as 10 th'
| jurisdiction OF the courts of the state.
THE JUDICIARY ACT.
As 10 the judiciary act OF 1898 the chic
justice SAYS the defendants proposition