The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-02

u Sx1s-S, must exSses-f 10 E7c1- thz- hzz-
ard an!sss by treaty stIpaAat5ons they
should - PLACED upon more sawo-ahse
footing than ire suaiexses Of ire govern
r1esE whose agents NAY oornratr th4
aaas@- We have no treaty with France
wnsch r-ovife-s for E1ch an exemption rsa
faEoT % os2r cltiEsns. NJ Marcy. secre-
tary 20 STATE. 70 Mr.. Richter. FsA~uary
=. 1874.
4 Foreigner Not Privileged.
The general principle Is supposed %
Re clear that 4 foreigner. WHO OF ms own
accord settsq~ In country. accepts the
conditions and liabilities. r pemcs and in
war. % native Of xszaz country Mr.
Segar1. secretary u state. TO Mr.. Bur
ton. SEPTEMBER z. 1874 MSS. Tnsr.. Col
ograbla-
II IL within rhe prerogative % each
sovereign 20 punish political offsnsss in
his country BY aliens. wheshar such Of
fenseS are ssiftioas or vSolent acts. Or
publications lueiting tners-o.' Mr.. Bayard
secretary OF state. 10 Ar. Jackson. Az
gus- : ISS.
''whasaver nay be the law Of England
Or the United States on the subject the
law o. Hawaii authorizes martial law and
proceedings Ia accordan nee with martial
law. and DO foreigner has cause Of CON-
paint II ne suffers the Consequence OF
its violation
Resident alters can be expelled when
ever their continued residence for any
reason heComes obnoxious or harmful 80
the Catlzerls OF or 70 the state Tsede-
mann Limitations of Police Power. p.
l43.
A Leading Case.
Phillips rs. Eyre. q b. ~ Elsss). was
an action tor assault and false imprison-
ment in jamaica Defense that she de-
nsV-ia-ctsef Of ths Island o. jamaica
that divers persons had conspiTed by
force TO over brow the government ma 4
broken oalt in open rebellion and COM
united many burglaTtss. roi,b1rsts and 50
on. and the civil power had been over
powered by the r@bels. and che defend
ant with the aid Of the military and
naval forces. had by force OF arms ar
rested the progress of the rebellion, and
finally that an act or indemnity had since
been passed. The court, Cochburn, g. j..
said: 1t appears 10 US clear that where.
10y the laws In other countries. an act
complained OF IL lawful. such act though
r. would have been wrongful ny oslr law
II committed here. cannot be made the
ground OF an action In an English court.
To hold the contrary would he attended
with the most inconvenient and startling
consequences and woaIld be altogether
contrary 70 that comfy OF nations In
matters OF law 10 which effect should II
possible be given. Thus an arrest and
Imprisonment might be perfectly justified
by thu law Of a foreign country under
circumstances in which IL would be ae-
tiona Die here. 1t would be impossible 10
hold In such case an action could be
maintained IN an English court. The
same reasoning would apply where an
act, though not enjoined. is yet author
azed and rendered lawful by the law OF
the country where II Il done. There
would have been no intention 10 inffict
wrong I'm such case. nor according to
the law OF the particular country will
any right have been infringed'
The decision I'm that case was based
on ths ground that the act OF indem-
nifty protected the defendant. IL was af-
firmed on error in 1870 ia .. b. l. r. l.
the court saying that in order 10 found
a suit Ia England for wrong alleged 20
have been committed abroad tina act
must not have been justifable by the law
of the place where It was done
judicial ". Political Power.
"A judicial tribunal cannot determine
political questions such as that which is
involved in the pnopriety OF declaring
martial law or OF Its continuance. In
State vs. Georgia, Wall. SO Qsss. the
court said that 'the distinction between
orally acknowledged in the Jurisprudence
both Of England and this country that
We need no mora than to refer TO some
of the authorities on the subject. They
sire all in ons direction. that this court
has no jurisdiction over questions of po-
htical rights. rights OF state Sovereignty,
of political jurisdiction. Of government
OF the question Of corporate existence as
a state
The preliminary defense IN the War
riuloo case should be based on the law
In order 10 prevent a jury trial IL posi-
BILE, and should consist Of plea of justi-
fcatlon, that the acts complained OF were
authorized and lawful by the laws OF the
republic of Hawaii and also were done
under the authority of the government
OF Hawaii.
Foreign written law Is proof to the
court and not 10 the jury. lst Greenl.
Ev., secs. 1918. Story Conf Laws, sec
635 ct seq. and cases there cited"
DOME>TICATISG TIE ELEPHANT.