New-York tribune., 1891-01-29
III .rIyCr,oy RETwEEX An APPLICATION BY A

PATTY TO AN ACTION AND BY \ STRANGER
Eefercnce must now b. made to distinction
which was taken in the outset Of this discussion
between cases where II party to an action asKed
for a nrohibitiun because he had right to refuse
10 be tried by Il court Objectionable TO him for
want of jurisdiction, and those where stranger
uo the cause asked for such an order
In the case of party, there Is very strong
reason lor insisting on prohibition derived from
the fact that sentence Oy court "hoIS WIZ
out jurisdiction IL no sentence lie c1hno' III
woke tie aid of the Judgment 10 protect MN Ill
other proceedings. lie cannot urge thab JUG
mcnt IN his favor is any bar 10 another sun III
less cost and vcxatOn. He may have 10 travel
tine weary path Of litigation over asoln. but
when a stranger intcreTcs there are no Such con-
sidcrations, not even II the stranger be mlghtS
nation TO which "a party belongs aS n citizen 10
bow the applicant out Oi court III such a case
Is not a denial of Justice; at the worst Al E Is
but scant courtesy. There may be good and suni-
cient reasons vi policy for not entertaining ihc
question III the strangers behalf. Accordingly
the act of granting the writ to the stranger de,
pends largely upon discretion and upon sound
views Of national policy, and the ineNpedency Gt
dispOsing of public questions III such . way as To
hamper or weaken the arm OF the Executive IN
dealing with international questions. The pros
pcct of an adverse decision bY the prohlbltory
court under limited powers OF Investigation
might deter ,sg h1so"'He br IfO" has sc'he 1he
responsibility, let him act SO as to submit, II he
chooses, international questions to De tried by
regular court in the ordinary manner, where the
nature of the subject matter admits OF a disposal
OF 1t by such judicial action u.
10 support this general view, the following
authorities may he cited Forster vs.. Foiscr 1
Best and smith, Queens Bench "a ID. 1868, PIP.
IS7 1893 2Ol 203, 20i. Mayor of London vs..
CoA l.. H. >, English and Irish Appeals tii. H.,
a39 $50 per Wies j. Queen vs. IwlsS, l.. X. 4,
O. f. 4O1 Chambers VS. Green. h. *. 20, Equity,
552 In Forster vs.. Forster the application lor
the writ Of prohibition was made by the CO.
respondent in divorce suit. He was only ag-
prievcd by an order against him for the payment
of costs which if wrong could bc rcctllied on APP
neal lie was accordingly regarded as a stran-
ger and not II party TO the action sought To DE
, nrohibitcd The court held that 1t had dlscre-
ton in granting the writ, and in the exercise OF It's
discretion declined to grant 1t. The JudScs VINO
narticinoted in the decision were Lord Chler-s us
lice Cdckhurn already referred TO IN this article,
with Blackburn and Crompton, JJ. Blackburn,
Jnstice % said on page 203: In prohibition are,
Grst CONTEMPT Of the Crown, and, secondly, dam
age to the party. If we see contempt oi 'he
Croyn thot is case in which we ought 70 inter-
fore stranger has, in general. no rlght 10 re-
miro onr interference: but II lie shows that ne is
saggrjeyed and has sustained damage, then, eN
debito ustitiae las n matter OF right, as IN any
other snit he has a right to our opinion upon the
oucstion The distinction has NOT been very dls-
tinctIv taken in any Of the previous cases. hut u
seems "a me TO be well founded on common sense.