Arizona republican., 1905-01-22

appointed in the place of his origin has
 never intended to change the domiciI
 of his ward, that of dis birth still con-
 tinues. Story Conf. Laws, par. 46. In
 determining the question of his legal
 custody in this commonwealth. he is
 therefore to be regarded as a foreign
 child who is lawfully within the juris-
 diction of this state, having been
 brought within its limits, not fcrcibly
 or clardestinely but with his own
 consent and with that of the petition
 CT, his duly appointed guardian under
 the laws of Illinois. who mad The law
 ful custody Of his person in that state.
 So much seems to be clear; and if the
 right the possession and control of
 the person of the child depended on his
 domicil, the right of the petitioner to
 claim the custody of his person would
 be indisputable. But we are unable
 to see that the facts that the child was
 born in another state, and that he has
 never by any act or election Cf his own
 or of his guardian obtained new
 home here, have a decisive bearing on
 the question at issue in the preent
 case. He iS now lawfully within the
 territory and under the Jurisdiction of
 this commonwealth, and has a right
 to claim the protection and security
 which our laws afford. to all persons
 coming within its limits, irrespective
 of their origin or of the place where
 they may be legally domiciled. Every
 sovereignty exercises the right of de-
 termining the status or condition of persons found within its Jurisdiction
 The laws of a foreign state cannot be permitted to intervene to affect the personal rights or privileges even of
 their own citizens, while they are re- siding in the territory and within the Jurisdiction of an independent govern ment. Effect may be given by way of comity to such laws by the judicial tribunals of other states and countries.
 but eX propriO vigore, they cannot have any Xtra-territorial force or Op- eration. The question whether a per- son within the jurisdiction of a state can be removed therefrOm depends. not on the laws of the place whence he came or in which he may have his legal domicil, but on his rights and ob- ligatiOns as they are fixed and deter mined by the laws of the state or ccun- try in which he is found. 2? The comity of a state will give no ef- feet to foreign laws which are fncon- sistent with or repugnant to it's own policy, or DrejudiciaI to the rights and interests of these who are within it's Jurisdiction. Even the parental rela- ton, which is everywhere recognized, will not be deemed to carry with it any authority ar control beyond that which is conferred by the laws of the coun- try where it is exerted. The patria potestas of a foreigr parent over his child is not that which Is vested in him by the laws of the place of his domicil but that which exists by vir- tue of the parental relation in the country where the father seeks to en- force his authority. These well settled principles are founded on the necessity of securing and preserving to every state the exclusive sovereignty and Jurisdiction within its own territory and avoiding the confusion and con fict of rights and remedies which would ensue. from attempting to give extra territorial effect to the varyinea laws Of different countries Statuta sue cluduntur territOriC, nee ultra ter ritorium dispOnunt. Every nation has an exclusive right to regulate persons and property within its jurisdiction ac- cording to its own laws, and the prin- ciples of public, policy on which it's own government is founded. It results from these principles, that persons exercis- ing offices and trusts with which they are clothed by virtue of the laws of a particular state Or country cannot un- dertake to transfer their power or ca pacity~ to act, so as to control persons or property situated beyond the limits of the Jurisdiction of the government or sovereignty from which their au- thoTity is derived. An administrator g ad ,a 2. state cannot act as such in this con- Nor, for like reasons, can a guardian appointed by virtue of the statutes of another state exercise any here over the person or prop erty of his ward. His rights and DOW CTS are strictly local, and circumscrib- ed by the Jurisdiction of the govern ment which clothed him with the of fee. Story Conf. Laws. par. 499 " So far, therefore as the claim of the petitioner to the custody of the child in the present case rests cn supposed rightful authority to control his person in this common wealth, by virtue of his appointment as guardian in the state of Illinois, it is not supported either on principle or He cannot assert his tutor ial power. de jure, in our courts or within our territory.
 But it by no means follows that his claim to the care of the child and the control of his person, and to the priv ilege of removing him from this com mcnwealth, is to be absolutely denied. On the contrary it is the duty Of the of this state, in the exercise of that Hcomity which recognizes the laws of other states when they are con- sistent with and in harmony with our