The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-14
Principle Laid Down by Jefferson i'm
1s03 Has Been Followed Ever
Since by This Government.
TREATY RIGHTS NOT INVADED
COMPLAINANTS HAVE NO GROUND
WHATEVER FOR THEIR SUIT.
Judge Parlange of Opinion that the
Case Is Not Within the COgni-
zance of His Court.

NEW ORLEANS, La, April 1S.-Judge
Parlange, in the United States Circuir
Court, to-day handed down his decision dis
missing the suit brought by the Boer repre-
sentatives here to prevent the shipment
of mules and horses out of New Orleans
to the British army in South Africa. The
decision is a lengthy one. Judge Parlange
holds that the transactions between citizens
OF the United States and of the British
government were conducted under the or
der of private citizenship, and that the
courts had absolutely no jurisdiction to in
terfere. The horses and mules, the court
said. were bought in a neutral territory
Judge Parlange continued:
IF the complainants could be heard 10
assert here personal injury to themselves
by invasion of treaty, and if the horses and
mules involved in this cause munitions
or war, all of which is disputed by the
cefense, 1t would become necessary to de-
termine whether the United States intended
by the declaration of the treaty of Wash
ington May s. 1871, to subvert the we'll
established principle of international law
that the private citizens of a neutral nation
can lawfully sell supplies TO beligerents
1T is almost impossible to suppose, a
Priori that the United States would have
done so, and would have thus provided for
the most serious and extensive arrangement
of and injury to the commerce of our citi-
zens whenever two or more foreign nations
should go TO war; and Ii would seem that
there is nothing in the treaty, especially
when its history and purposes are consid-
cred, which would warrant the belief that
the United States insisted on inserting
therein a new principle of international law
from which the greatest damage might re-
suit to the commerce of this country and
which was absolutely different from and an
tasonistic to the rule and policy which the
government of this country has heretofore
strenuously and invariably followed. The
principle that neutral citizens may law
fully sell to bellgerents has long since
been settled in this country by the highest
judicial authority
JEFFERSON QUOTED.
Judge Parlange cites numerous authori-
ties in support of the foregoing and con-
tinues:
THE principle has been adhered to by
the executive department of the govern
ment since the time when Mr.. Jefferson was
secretary of state to the present day. Mr..
jefferson said in 1893:
"'Our citizens have always been free to
make, vend and export arms 1t is the con-
slant occupation and livelihood of some of
them To suppress their calling. the only
means perhaps of their subsistence, because
war exists in foreign and distant coun-
tries in which have no concern would
scarcely be expected. 1t would be hard in
principle and impossible in practice The
law of nations, therefore. respecting the
rights of those at peace, does not require
from them such an internal arrangement in
their occupation
ITO the same effect are numerous ex-
preSSiOnS and declarations to the executive
department of the government from the
earliest period of the country to the pres
ent time Affidavits in the cause purport
to show that the vessels which make the
expectations of mules and horses, of which
the bills complain, are private merchant
vessels; that they are commanded by their
usual officers, appointed and paid by the
owners; that they are manned by their
usual private crews. which are also paid
by the owners; that they are not equipped
for war; that they are not in the military
service of Great Britain, nor controlled by
the naval authorities of that nation; that
they carry the mules and horses as they
would carry any other cargo; and that the
mules and horses are to be landed not on
the territory of the South African Republic,
or the Orange Free State, but in Cape Col
ony. which is territory belonging to Great
Britain
it is difficult to see how cause of COM
plaint can arise. If a belligerent may come
to this country and buy munitions of war,
it seems clear that he may export them as
freight in private merchant vessels of his
own, or any other nation, as cargo could
be exported by the general public.
mo precedent has been cited to the court
which, in it's opinion, could even remotely
sustain the cause of the complainants. No
case has been cited, nor do | believe that
any could have been cited, presenting is
sues similar to those of this cause. The
three complainants are private citizens. 1t
is true that the complainant Pierce AYERS
that he is consul general of the Orange
Free State, but his demand is exclusively
a personal one. and he must be deemed to
be suing in his personal capacity. One of
the compainants is an alien. and citizen
of the Orange Free State. Only one of the
complanants is alleged to be a citizen of
the United States They own property in
the South African Republic and the Or
ange Free State-foreign countries now at
war with Great Britain. They fear that the
war. If continued. will result in the de-
struction of their property. They believe
that if the shipments of mules and horses
from this port are stopped the war viii
cease: they claim that by virtue of decla-
ration of international law contained in an
international treaty to which the foreign
countries. in which their property is situ-
ated were not parties. they have the per
sonal right to enjoin the shipments for the
nurpose of stopping the war and thus saw
ing their property from the destruction
which they apprehend will result 10 il from
a continuance of the war. When complain
ants cause is thus analyzed. and the ma
t,lre of the alleged right under the treaty
is considered. it is obvious that court of
eouitv cannot take cognizance OF the cause.
II 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.