The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1901-05-01
BOEP CASE LOST IN COURT
Judge parlange, Of New Orleans, Do.
Vines to Stop Shipment Of Mules
Decides That the Court Has No Juris-
diction in the Suit Of General
Pearson and Others.

New Orleans, La.-Judge Parlange,
of the United States Circuit Court
rendered a decision in the Boer suit
brought by General Sam Pearson Of
the Boer Army, Consul-Gen
Charles D. Pierce. of the Orange
River Free State and Edward Van
Ness, Of New York City, asking for
an injunction to prevent the shipment
Of mules and horses from New Or.
leans to the British Army in South
Africa. The Court denied the injunc.
tion asked for on the ground that
the Court is without jurisdiction In
the matter.
y The Court also reviewed the case
and decided that the plaintiffs had
not q foot to stand on; that mules
and horses cannot be regarded as
munitions of war; that under the
treaty Of Washington Of 1871 with
Great Britain, private citizens OF
neutral countries can lawfully sell
supplies to bclligerents; that in this
particular case. the vessels which the
plaintiffs sought to enjoln and pre-
vent from carrying mules and horses
to Africa were private vessels not
equipped for the military service OF
England, but carrying on their regu-
lar commercial business, and pre-
pared to carry any kind Of cargoes.
1t is true that they carried horses
and mules, but these were landed not
in the Transvaal or Orange ! River
Free State, but in the British posses.
sion, Cape Colony; and there was no
more reason why the United States
should prevent the shipment Of mules
and horses to Cape Colony than to
Canada or Australia. t.s for the COM
plaint of General Pearson that these
mules and horses were being sent to
Africa to destroy property, the Judge
ruled that In order to appeal to equity
in a case Of this kind. it was neces-
sary to show that the damage appre.
hended Is clear and reasonable, and
not remote, undistinct and even
speculative as in this case.
The plaintiffs had made no charge
that the neutrality laws were being
violated. "But aside from all these
considerations" said Judge Parlange.
"the Courts view is that the case is
a political one of which O. court OF
equity can take no cognizance. and
which, in the very nature Of govern
mental things, must belong to the
Executive branch of the Government.
"The three complainants are priv.
ate citizens. They own property in
the South African Republic and the
Orange Free State, foreign countries
now at war with Great Britain. They
fear that the war, if continued, will
result in the destruction Of their
property. They believe that if the
shipment Of mules and horses from
this port are stopped, the war will
cease; they claim that by virtue of
declaration Of international law con.
tanned in an international treaty. to
which the foreign countries in which
their property Is situated were not
parties, they have the personal right
to enjoin the shipments for the pur-
pose Of stopping the injury to their
property through the destruction
which they apprehend will result to
it from q continuation Of the war.
When the complainants' cause is thus
analyzed and the nature of the alleged
right under the treaty is considered,
it is obvious that q court of equity
cannot take cognizance of the cause.
am clearly Of opinion that this
cause is not within the cognizance of
this Court and for that reason the
rule nisi must be denied"
Boarman. District Judge, who sat
in this cause with Parlange. District
Judge, concurred in the opinion.