The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-12-11
SUPREME
COURT
POWERS
interesting Opinion by Judge
Brown In Case Of Williams
vs.. Stearns In U. S. Court

An important decision was rendered
yesterday I'm the United states ciFcnt
court. when Judge Arthur L. Brown
handed down an opinion OH the plainun
demurrer TO the defendants special plea
IN the case OF George Fred Williams ana
others against Walter IL. stearns ann
wife.
The action brought by the plsintins ~
20 recover possession OF real estate To-
ssted In Pawtucket and the damages ASK
"A are sle00 The defendants by speclai
piea ailege title in themselves ano se.
forth as a basis OF title a final decree or
the appellate division or tne ns,'o
court OF Rhode Island, sitting In chsh-
Gerry. ,.t,,
The plaintiffs demur TO this plea. claim
Ing that this judgment and decree plesu
Cd are of the appellate division or the SUI
prone court by which chancery powers
were exercised. when the constitution OF
the United States expressly prohiDlts ne
appellate ,i division IRON sisss Issgs the plain
tiffs. the decree Ia In violation OF ihe co"-
stitution of the United States
In support OF their plea the piaihuns
cite several cases az examples.
In the opinion handed down yesterday
Judge Brown says; -,
while the decision IN Floyd vs.. Quinn
was upon a petition nled in the appei-
late division OF the supreme court yet:
ss constitutional question was raised
and az that question was heard py si ,ne
Justices OF the supreme court neung 70
thst the decision was by the constitu-
uonal tribunal
DEPRIVED OF NO RIGHTS.
whatever questions may arise az 70
the right OF the legislature OF Rhode ISL
and 10 divide the supreme court or the
constitution and to exclude from its SEES
aions any OF It's Justices there can De no
reasonable ground for Questioning the va
lidity OF a provision OF law permitting me
entire number OF justices OF the supreme
court to sit In single body as the su.
preme tribunal for the Interpretation OF
the constitution OF the state That this
body Ss called the appellate division or
the supreme court is OF no consequences.
eince it Is not division. not part, but
the whole OF those persons who upon the
strictest construction. OF the constitution
were for the time being vested with the
power OF making a final Interpretation OF
the constitution OF the state"
THE opinion lin Floyd Va. QUINN. as
interpret IL, takes the broad ground that
q power not vested by the constitution
itself in the supreme court may be grant
cd by the legislature TO a division OF the
supreme court. The question OF the ex-
ercise OF jurisdiction by single justices
and by less than a majority OF the JUS
tices IN dealt with as an historical dues-
ton. and the state constitution is inter
preted In supposed accordance with the
practical Interpretation placed upon Il for
many years. There can be no doubt OF
the power OF the justices OF the supreme
court Of Rhode Island to make the nna'
Interpretation or the state constitution.
provided that in so doing they do not i'm
pair rights guaranteed by the constitution
OF the United states. md no grounds
for holding that the plaintiffs have been
deprived OF any rights under the consu-
tuition OF the United States.
ITO further review the reasoning Of the
Justices OF the supreme court In Fioyo
vs.. Quinn Is I'm no part the duty OF this
court. In deciding this case / desire
neither to approve nor disapprove the rea-
soning OF that decision. This court ac-
cords 10 the decision the full respect and
authority to which II ia entitled as an in
depreciation OF the constitution or Rhode
Island by the supreme consttutional tri'
bunai OF that state"
The plaintiffs demurrer is over-rued.