The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-03-29

shows that there in every such action,
only reparation TO tho ',1red individual, but also,
in addition pecuniary fict,n enforced for the
general welfare and bepe oe community or state.
BY the comfy Of nations Of all civilized
tries lend their aid, as gepef. 20 enable party TO
obtain that TO which he has ~here from the
ture Of the subject matter OF the parties,
II In their power to do 80; bu' g not follow from
this that they will undertake TO '~ery wrong that
may have happened in any part Of q, bee ause the
parties, plaint or defendant may afs shappen TO re
within their jurisdiction The extent 10 hey will go
upon the principle Of comfy / have is, think,
peher doubtful uncertain but very ienned 10
view Of the an. ~ a. Of q,
piled relations and Infinite DteTes to viii gives
rise, courts Of justice have recognized and
or contracts cannot be regarded az having any hx ae
locality and the nature of such obligations ne
DUTY Of enforcing them, where the ability exists, il "'
ought to be recognized by every tribunal Hence,
tracts wherever made whoever may be the part
that entered into them have always been enforced wher
jurisdiction of the parties Obtained by the courts of
country Of Epgand and several in this country
author the further conclusion that actions
for injury done to personal property comes
within the reason Of the rule upon which this comfy
founded But the invasion of the personal liberty
individual either by assault upon his person. re-
ployme of force to the detrment injury Of
his person, stands upon very different footing,
and where redress may be bad at the tribunals Of
the State county where bis person was assaulted
bis liberty invaded, know nothing in the princi
pies the policy of the law authorizing other tribunals
interfere for the redress Of such injury, but very
weiehty against it, Without suggesting other
copsio erations this Itself affords sufficient illus
raton The injury here complained OF was the deilbe
act Of extensive body organized u the city OF San
Francisco under the name Of Vigilance Committee, as
sumDg for tue time being in that city the functions of
government, acting In concert, maintaining armed
force, eezng persons accused Of crimes and pnbicy
putting them death. Aud tie question involved In ch
movement or SOCIAL rrupton so puohc IN s OBJECT and
so deliberate in s acon-uame'y whether was an un
warTantable exercise OF power or political nesessity-
is more appropriately examined, and can be better
occurred than before the tribunals of other States
of other countries. Tho duty Of any govern
ment State TO protect the person Of the
citizen against unlawful Violence enforce his right
TO reparaon from the wrong doer who lays violent Hands
upon him. founded upon the principle laid dowa by Lord
Coke in Cavins case that allegiance and protection
reciprocal; and hence, between British subjects,
wherever throughout the British dominioos the re
Clip, ocal obligation OF allegiance and protection ex.
tends the courts Of Westminster Hall have entertained
jurisdiction of action for injuries to the person. Within
this csss the many cases cited the argument in
which the Governors OF distant colonies, Official per-
sops have been held TO for personal torts The
Of Rafael vareet e VIM. b. ,o55) forms
cepton for, although the unlawful plaintiffs
pei in that the province OF Oude the
minors Of Sujah powlah, independent prince, the
plaintns imprisonment was continued In the province Of
Bengal Of which the defendant President The
British courts, moreover, in recognition Of the
duty Of British subjects. to obey the laws,
will hold them amenable for injuries done with
in the British dcminons to strangers foreigners.
This the of Rafael in the just referred to-
who was an Armenian merchant; but it is strongly
illustrated by the Of Tveat MORRISON (Yelv, 1881
which merchant Of Brabapt trading Eng aud man.
tanned action against British subject for calling
bankrupt in England; and IN Psanl VS. Lawson % Bng
N Co. 90) which a foreigner, residing aud living a. the
time in Constantnoplc maintained action in the Com
Pleas for libel published concerning him in Eogand
Resident strangers Foreigners they obedience
the laws entitled 10 the protection Of the laws-hsnce
in English courts, actions b. tween foreigners injuries
TO person property occurring within the British do.
minions may tained but this is the limit aud
think will be found in the whole OF English
jurisprudence IN which an action for an injury TO the per-
sop inflicted by foreigner upon another In a foreign
county ever held ~ be mantanabie in an English
court The only thing bearing upon the subject is the
remark of Lord Mansfield in Mostyn We. FabrSos n
Cowp, 16I) which he questions the existence Of the
right. The absence OF all authority in England upon
such point is almost as conclusive as an express 1iu
cation denyip ing the existence Of such right La th,
country and especially In this Sate actions for injuries
to the person occurring upon the high seas be-
case Gardner Thomas "a Johns 134) the distinction
10 taken by the Court that the injury occurred without the
actual exclusive territory Of any nation; and be
said, in confonance with the principles here recog.
rized that similar rule would apply where the in
jury Is done in a country or place where there
Is no govern ment or tribunal 70 afford redress
In our country the principle OF the reciprocal duties Of
obedience and protection equally applies Tue citizen
obedience TO the general government and the gene
raj government affords him protection as far its cJsti
tutional power limit extends. Beyond that this
cpocal relation subess between him uni the government
Of the particular Stale of which, for the ne being he s
a member, which in that respect las all the powers
and attributes Of sovereign state; aud II is n
that State that he trusts chiefly for the security
Of his person, through the operation OF the laws
it has enacted for bis protection and benefit If
Is made upon his person he has such remedy
the laws Of the State provide which, for bep
he belonged ana where the wrong done him. ami
s not only injury to him, but also disturbance
Of the peace and good order OF the people OF that State
and as both considerations enter INTO and affect the riv
action for damages, think the action mlintanable
only in the State where the unlawful act was done
Two cited upon the argument not reconclable
With the conclusion here arrived at It held In was
va Thomas q Blob. 45s In 1902, that though the injury
inflicted in the Territory OF Indiana, that IN action
mapiainabe in the court Of Kentucky; but the decsoa
was put ulon the ground that the point decided 10