THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.
By Stephen O. Edwards.
The first General Assembly convened in Rhode Island met at Portsmouth in 1647. This assembly adopted the charter obtained from the Long Parliament by Roger Williams, and organized under it a government for the united settlements. The code of laws enacted at this session provided for a General Court of trials for the whole colony. The general executive officers of the colony, consisting of a president and four assistants, one from each town, composed this court. These officers were elected for one year, or until their successors were chosen. Their judicial functions were regarded as incidental to the other duties imposed upon them. The General Court of trials was the highest judicial tribunal in the colony, and though differing widely both in jurisdiction and in constitution, was the predecessor of the present Supreme Court of the State. Among those who administered justice in this early court, appear the historic names of Roger Williams, William Coddington, John Clarke, Samuel Gorton, and others less known, who were instrumental in shaping the destinies of the infant colony.
The Code of 1647 conferred upon the General Court jurisdiction of the higher class of crimes, of cases judged too weighty for determination by the town councils, of cases between different towns or between citizens of different towns, of cases against citizens of other colonies, and generally of cases of great importance, and such as were not referred to other tribunals.
A spirit of local pride and jealousy of central authority seems to have been prevalent even in this little colony. It was not enough that each town had a representative on the board of assistants, and thus a judge upon the bench. The sessions of the General Court of trials were held from town to town. The Code of 1647 provided that the head officers of the town where the court might be held should sit with the general officers "for council and helpe." This concession to local pride and prejudice was soon discovered to be unavailing. Officers who were denied the right to vote found their "council and helpe" unheeded. It was accordingly enacted in 1650 that the town officers should have " equal authority to vote and act with the general officers." It is not improbable that the local element in the composition of the court was dictated in part by the thought that judges of the vicinage, because of their more intimate knowledge of the parties, and being personally conversant with the cause, might be able to form a juster judgment than strangers. In 1651 a change was made in the jurisdiction of the court. It was enacted that all causes, except prosecutions for certain crimes of the highest grade, should be tried in the first place in the town courts, thus converting the General Court for the most part into a court of appeal or review.
While our forefathers did not deem it necessary that judges should be learned in the law, they did not fail to recognize the importance of the bar, or appreciate the peculiarities which appear in all ages to have characterized the members of that profession. They seem to have had a lurking fear that the learning and subtlety of the bar might mislead the common-sense of the bench. It was accordingly provided by an early enactment that a litigant who preferred might "use the attorney that belongs to the court" instead of pleading his own cause, or having his own attorney plead for him. These court attorneys were required by the statute to be "discreet, honest, and able men for understanding," and were solemnly engaged by the head officer of the town not " to use any manner of deceit to
