the new set up, which they called fundarnental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick and incxpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights and, finding that the prerogative writs which the Courts in England had developcd and used whenever urgcnl necessity demanded inlmediate and decisive interposition, were pcculiarly suited for the purpose, they confened, in the States'spltere, new and wide pcwers on the High Courts of issuing directions, orders. or writs primatil.v for the enlorcement of fundamental rights, the power to issue such directions, etc.. "for an) other purpose, being also included with a view apparently to placc all the I Iigh Courts in this country in somewhat the same position as the Court of King's Bench in England. But wide as were the powers thus conferred, a two-fold Iimitation rvas placed upon their exercise. In the first place, the power is to be exercised "tlrroughout the territorics in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", that is to say. the writs issued by the court cannot run beyond the te[itories subjec( to its jurisdiction. Secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such .rrits must be "within those lerritories", which clearly implics that they must be amenable to itsjurisdiction either hy residence or location within those territories".
