New-York tribune., 1891-01-29

But the Government, who were owners oil tha'
snip seized by the Admiralty. had very sehsioS
ana properly agreed that they would refer Ine
matter to him 10 decide as an arbitrator Inc
hIedlve has in the present case, as uhdersuanu'
made an offer to refer it TO arbtratlon' out loi
some reason other it went of, and now the cdsc
uepends upon the question whether or not. uhuei
,he circumstances stated, the fact OF the VesSci
ocing the property of the Khedive is a delehcc.
VA that Lord Stowel as said before. entertaihe"
an argument at great length and avoided eApiesS-
ing any opinion; and when he. as the arbitrator,
mad made his award, he deliberately stated thas
the parties who claimed the salvage should at first
apply to the Ambassador and they would have gos
II as matter of course /; and it very unbccom-
Ing TO issue warrant of arrest against man-ol-
war belonging 10 a foreign Power. Then he states
mat nice question arose to international law
Now we are asked to prohibit the Court of Admir-
atty entertaining that which Lord Stowell. per-
maps the highest authority on these matters, de-
clared was a difficult question of international
law. II seems to me that this question
can he better decided by court which
mas almost a peculiar jurisdiction over matters
relating to international law. 1t does seem 10
me that the Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction
10 determine the facts and 20 decide whether
international and maritime law do allow the cir.
cumstances stated TO be a defence to claim
against the Charkich; and If that court be wrong
IN its Judgment the Privy Council can set 1t right
and their decision would he final | do not see
how il can be said that the Court OF Admiralty
is exceeding It's jurisdiction in entertaining the
suit as a question of international law; and taking
that view of il, | think the court ought not 10
be prohibited
IL seems impossible for any reasonable mind
not TO come to the conclusion affirmed by Justice
Blackburn that the Admiralty Court having
power to dispose of tie question of seizure and
condemnation grounds of international law,
must have the power to ascertain the facts if con-
tested, and apply to them what it regards to be
the proper rule Of law, be the rule one of the
strict common law, or of maritime law including
therein International law. Any other view would
make il possible to obtain writ of prohibition
in every contested case. If an error Is involved
in the Judgment Of the Admiralty Court let 1t
be corrected hy an appeal
VI.
ERRONEOUS DECISIONS BY AN INFERIOR COURT
HAVING JURISDICTION OF A CAUSD SUPPLY
no GROUND FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION.
II a court having jurisdiction commits irreSu-
larilcS In procedure or makes a wrong decision
on the merits OF the case, tie true remedy Is py
an appeal instead Of by the writ lBlaquere Y.
Hawkins. Doug. r. 37sI. In order TO make
prohibition proper in such a case there must DC
presented by the plcadipss in the cause some
matter which the court is from IN nature, lncom-
pctrnt 10 Try Mayor, etc OF London Y. Cox
> English and Irish Appeal Cases, 23o \ ID. ls6p'
This is a decision made by the House of Lords
with a written opinion OF the Judges of the liIsh
Court composed by Wcllcs. j., and is of very high
auirrity. This judge was "A man Of eN-
fraorlin.ry research and ability, and ms
opinion i tue storchousc o! prlncl-
pie, and authorit!cs on Tie topic now in hand
From what has been snd it would seem that
decision by the Suprrmc Court of the United
States allowing a writ Of prohibition 10 the Dis-
triot Court. when questions of international law
are involved. would supply bad precedent. OPP
posed % English decisions. aud unsafe IN ltSeh.
as II miaht exclude true judicial asccrtainment OF
the facts and substitute ailidayts in the place oil
testimony. since the writ might be granted before
triaL This course would also tend 10 make the
discussion Of tie questions of law less thorough
since there would be- no series of appeals as there
would naturally lc II the ease was continued III
tLr District Coun Moreover, as foreign HoN-
ernmcnt would bc the promoter OF the htiSa'l"h' II
would control It's progress. and IN a measure pre-
vent our Government from selecting It's own time
for the disposal of the questions at issue.
VII.
PROHIBITION AFTER JUDGMENT