New-York tribune., 1891-01-29

the realm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. VINO
was put under attachment in prohibition, because
he persisted IN holding judge in an ecclesiasu-
cal court defendant to be tried before him for
ordinary defamation Year Book 2, Henry w.,
Case As, referring to case in the Hilary Term
in IA, Edward III, A. D, 134O.
Such defamation" was cause of action for
either libel or SANDER, to he tried by Judge
with a jury. and not as the Archbishop would
have it, case for Court Christian" or an cccle.
siastical court, although IT. then conceded that
he might try case Of "spirituaP defamation,
where the person DETAINED was an ccclesastic
Ii certainly cannot he denied that writ OF
prohibition is for many purposes the right arm
of strong central government. Without It, or
some equivalent, England might have been an
aggregate of counties instead of powerful and
consolidated nation. With it, the feudal lords
did not dare 20 set up against the King their
petty local courts tribunals.
III.
TO WHAT COURTS THE WRIT MAY BE ADDRESSED
The writ in question is designed to keep H.
ferorr courts within their proper bounds. The
term inferior is applied to such courts as 90
NOT pcesess general jurisdiction. but are limited TO
causes of special or local nature An early Judge
states the principle in this manner: " The King
within the realm, as well spiritual as temporal
as for example, archbishops and their officers,
deans, and other ministers, that have spiritual
mrisdiction and other conservators OF privileges
as the Knights OF ST. Jchu of Jerusalem. and
others His meaning is that it is essential to the
being of court that its authority should emanate
from the King. Accordingly, the same judge de-
MED that Collector of the Pope could hold a
court in ENGLAND. since whatever authority he had
came from the bulls issued by the pope, one OF
which he deposited with the King, and kept the
other This he adds. gives him no power 10 holh
any plea within the realm, and all that pc does
is simply of his own good pleasure AlsJudlcial
power from within the kingdom; no shade" oi
il from without was the nearing of these words
This was n great and noble utterance for the
year l4OO 1t Sims up the rule that prevails
to-day. though it needed bold and able man to
say then.
As at present understood. the writ may be
addressed in proper cases either 10 court OF nNn
or criminal jurisdiction, lie II an ordinary common
law court or ecclesiastical or admiralty court.
Prohibition to a Court o. Admiralty VIII he con-
sidered i'm detail hereafter. 1t cannot be addressed
to a court-martial after sentence pronounced
by the court ratified by the King, and followed
I'D by dismissal from the army, IN pursuance oil
The sentence. This qualification Of tie Judl'ia'
nowcr 70 issue tie writ is of high political iu-
portancc since il proceeded on the gTouhu 'ha'
what the King has power TO DO independently
of any inauiry he plainly may do though the
inoniry should not be satisfactory to court ol
law. or even tough the court that conducted II
had no lc.al Jurisdiction 10 inquire. 'Alat'er o'
Poe. , Barn " Ad 6el, last page OF opinion ny
Denman. c. j.. This seems 10 be ruling that
the political executive power o' the
Chief Magistrate is not TO oe hsmpereu
or intcrfcred with in this manner
\ writ OF prohibition will not issue 70 court
martial in this country Oh the ground tha' 1t Il
peculiarly adapted To try cases llVoiNihs 'le
customary military law. Smith " Whitney 49,
United States Reports. 167-l79j. The reasoning
in This case is not dissimilar to that which has
been iudicialy asserted as To the capacity oil
Courts of Admiralty to deal with questions oil IL
tcrnational law.