The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-11-15

The following paragraphs from the opinion OF
the Chief Justice. viii strike our readers as per-
tinent and just
The question in this case Is, was there any legal
cause Of restraint Our law recognizes the validity
Of the contracts, under which this view was held,
and that imposes a restraint If the party violates the
contract. Now in this case, he was seeking 10 evace
his contract by going ashore on the eve Of the de-
psrture Of the vessel, and IL was a restraint not II
violation Of law, unless there were other reasons,
such as cruel treatment, which Il not pretended IN
this case.
If the contracts were TO be executed here the man
would be responsible for its fulfllment, and if he re-
fused TO do so, he would be liable TO Imprisonment,
and we must extend to foreigners IN tTGHsltu the
same protection which is secured to our citizens.
Mr.. Justice Story SAYS SThe rules which should
be observed between nations are those which arise
from mutual interest and utility, from a sense OF the
inconvenience which would result from q contrary
doctrine, or from q moral necessity to do justice, IN
order that Justice may be done 10 US in return"
Story's Conflict of Laws, p. "a. "It is," as MIR.
Justice Story remarks, in the strictest sense, q
matter Of the comfy of nations, and not OF any par
amount obligation, superseding all discretion on the
subject"
All countries are cautious about exercising juris-
diction in cases between foreigners who are IN tran
stu TO their own country, or from their own country
10 another country. II is the universal practice TO
remit them to their home forum, unless it is such q
case of injustice or cruelty as would be a denial Of
justice 10 do so.
In this case, the circumstances are entirely differ
emit; Wong Sow is in comfortable circumstances on
board, and the voyage to Costa Rica is a few weeks,
and all the witnesses which would be required here,
he will have there, therefore, my belief is, that the
Courts Of all countries would decline to exercise
jurisdiction in such case nnless it should be proved
that the party was unjustly treated. It is not pre-
tended that not to exercise jurisdiction would be q
denial Of justice.
A foreigner has not the right to demand the exer-
else of a jurisdiction of the Court which might in
-.T-a H. - n-.-- lTr1nrnNr AZ
for doing damage to the citizens of countries on
friendly relations with US, as well as letting loose
upon our shores a large number of people who may
occasion serious trouble. The home forum is the
proper tribunal for foreigners to litigate their cases,
and for o foreign Court to interfere when in q few
days the parties can have that advantage, is not in
conformity with the usages of nations. IL Is better
and wiser to let foreigners stand by their agreements
and settle them under their own laws and by their
own tribunals. The law will not aid a man in the
violation of a legal contract but IN the case under
consideration the case is far stronger; his contract
is to be performed at or near the port of destination
heavy expenses are incurred for him, not only in
preparation for the voyage but in procuring a vessel
for the home port.
Suppose, for illustration, that all these persons are
discharged from the vessel and put on shore, the
consequences to the charterers and the party from
whom they have received heavy advances may be
ruinous.
To those of our readers who have not yet seen
the opinion of the Chief Justice in full, we
recommend its careful perusal. They will find
in it evidence of thorough research and sound
logical views.