Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1901-04-18
PRAYER For Restraining Injunction
Against Shipment Of Mules to
Africa is Denied.
JEFFERSON'S DECISION CITED.
Judge Parlange Holds That the Transact
ions Were Conducted Under Private
Citizenship and the Court Has
Absolutely No Jurisdiction.

New Orleans, April l3.-Judge Par
lange, in the United States circuit court
today handed down decision, dismisslng
the suit for injunction, brought by Boer
representatives here with a view to pre-
venting the shipment of mules and horses
out of New Orleans to the British army in
South Africa.
Judge Parlange holds that the transact
ions between citizens of the United States
and the British government were conduct
ed under the order of private citizenship
and that the courts had absolutely no
Jurisdiction to interfere. The horses and
mules, the court said, were bought in
neutral territory. Judge Parlange con-
tinues
"If the complainants could be heard to
assert here rights personal to themselves
in the treaty invaded, and if the mules
and horses involved in this cause are mu-
nitions of war, all of which is disputed by
the defendants, it would become necessary
10 O6l6lInlu6 NuCtuCi t1O OhAVO~ S'S'SNS
intended by the declaration of the treaty
(of Washington, May 5, 1871 to subvert
the well established principle of interna-
tional law that the private citizens Of a
neutral nation can lawfully sell supplies to
bellgerents.
''It is almost impossible to suppose a
priori that the United States have done go
and would have thus provided for the
most serious and extensive arrangement
of the injury to the commerce of our cltl-
zens, whenever two or more foreign ma
tions should 90 to war; and it would seem
that there is nothing in the treaty, es-
pecialy when its history and purposes are
considered, which would warrant the be-
lief that the United States insisted upon
inserting therein new principle of inter
national law from which the greatest DAM
age might result to the commerce CT this
country and which was absolutely different
from and antagonistic to the rule and
policy which the government of this coun-
try has heretofore strenuously and fnvari-
ably followed.
'The principle that neutral citizens may
lawfully sell to,belligerents has long since
been settled in this country by the highest
judicial authority"
Judge Parlange cites numerous authorl'
ties in support of the foregoing and con-
tinues
'The principle has been adhered to
by the executive department of the gov
ernment from the time when Mr.. Jetfer'
son was Secretary of State to the presen'
day. Mr.. Jefferson said in 1898:
"'Om citizens have always been free to
make, vend and export arms. 1t is the
constant occupation and livelihood of some
of them. TO suppress their callings, the
only means, perhaps, of their subsistence
because war exists in foreign and distant
countries in which we may have no con
earn. would scarcely be expected. Il
would be hard in principle and impossible
in practice. The law Of nations, there
fore, respecting the rights of those a
peace, does not require then such an in
ternal arrangement in their occupation
"To the same effect are numerous ex
pressions and declarations to the execu
tive department from the earliest perio'
of the country to the present time.
"Affidavits in the cause purport to shoV
that the vessels which make the exporta
ton of mules and horses of which the bill
complain, are private merchant vessels
IF these affidavits set out the facts truly
is difficult to see how cause of complain
can arise. If beliggerent may come +
this country and buy munitions of war
seems clear that he may export them
freight in private merchant vessels OF hl
own or other nation, as cargo could be e1
ported by the general public.
"No precedent has been cited to To
court which in its opinion could even n
motely sustain the cause OF the complain
ants. The three complainants are privat
citizens; it is true that the complainar
Pierce AYERS that he is consul general {
the Orange Free State, but his demand
exclusively personal one and he must
deemed to be suing in his personal CT
pacity. They own property IN Sout
African Republic and the Orange Ere
State. They fear that the war, if contll
ned, will result in the destruction of the
property. They believe that if tie shi
ments of mules and horses from this po
are stopped the war will cease. they clal
that by virtue of declaration OF lntern
tional law contained in an information
treaty to which the foreign countries
which their property is situated were n
parties, they have the personal right
enjoin the shipments for the purpose
stopping the war and thus saving the
property from the destruction which tn
apprehend will result to it from contin
tion of the war. When complainant
cause is thus analysed and the nature
the alleged right under the treaty is co
sidered, it is obvious that court OF equl
cannot take cognizance of the cause.
81 am clearly of the opinion that Il
cause is not within the cognizance OF u
court and for that reason the rule must
denied"