The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-03-01

movements Of the distinguished lady and
her intentions as to future action have
reached the outside world, prior to the
developments herein outlined.
When the Princess reached New York
after her hasty flight across the ocean she
found all arrangements fully completed
for the contin uation of her journey. The
services of Hon. Benjamin +. Tracy, ex-
member OF Harrison's Cabinet and at
present the senior partner in the firm of
Tracy, Boardman & Co. of New York,
had been secured, while General W. II.
II. Hart of San Francisco had also been
enlisted in the work OF preparing for the
struggle, which has just commenced, for
the control of the Princess children.
When the Princess left New Y ork she
carried with her about dozen neatly
typewriter pages of manuscript, which
contains the joint opinion of General
Tracy and Attorney-General Hart upon
all the legal phases of the case, and by
this her actions Will be guided in the
future. Stripped of all technical phrases
the opinion is in purport as follows:
The fact of Miss Mackay's marrying the
Prince did not cause her TO lose her cit-
zenshlp, because she did not become natu-
ways retains her citizenship under these
conditions. It will only be necessary for
her to remain one year in California when
she can apply for a divorce
The Dakota divorce laws were discussed
at length, but were objected to by the at
torneys in the case, because a decree
granted in that State would not hold in
Italy, as the civil law does not obtain in
the State mentioned. Three months resi-
dence in Dakota does not obtain citizen
ship. but only the right TO apply for
divorce.
If the Princess had secured a divorce in
Paris it would not have been recognized in
Italy, because under the French law a
foreign Prince cannot be sued, as the
court could not obtain jurisdiction over
the Prince under the operation of the feu-
dal laws. In other words, divorce in
France can only be obtained by securing
personal service on the defendant, and
hence the defendant must be subject to the
jurisdiction of the court. 10 California.
the opinion goes on to state, it is a oues-
ton of the courts jurisdiction over the
plaintiff which gives the courL Jurisdiction.
whereas in the other case it is Jurisdiction
over the defendant. When a court has
jurisdiction over a plaintiff the question
then is one of status, and it is immaterial
whether the defendant is there or not.
The California law furthermore allows a
mother the custody Of her children, so long
as they require mothers care, and the
courts have uniformly held that nine
years is the limit, and after that 1t is for
the court to determine what is for the best
interest of the child, and in determining
that question the court will consider the
disposition of the two parents and the
ability of each to support and educate the
child.
When the Prince welded Miss Mackay
he took her subject to the rights she then
possessed under the citizenship she then
had. In California. the opinion goes on to
say, there is no law whirh makes any dis
tinction between a Prince or person of
royal blood and an ordinary individual.
Hence, the fact of the husband being OF
royal blood would be no defense to the
courts taking jurisdiction over the Princess
and her children. The moment the latter
arrive in California they are subject TO the
jurisdiction Of that court and the children
are subject to the Princess control If
Prince Colonna comes to the coast he will
also be subject 10 the courts jurisdiction,
and cannot get away from it.
The opinion lays special stress upon the