The Irish standard., 1901-04-20
DECISION IN THE MULE CASE.

DECISION IN THE MULE CASE.
According to Judge Parlange of the
United States circuit court at New Or
leans there is no law to stop mule ship
ment to South Africa from American
ports. The fact that the shipment of
mules to the British was delayed pend
ing the decision of the federal judge
caused great annoyance to McKinley's
cabinet, and the new attorney general
who represents the trusts was directed
to make an investigation and report
his opinion Immediately. Before Attor-
ney General Knox, the successor of
Griggs of New Jersey, had time to
look over the neutrality laws, the fed
el'al judge had decided favorably to
the British, to the intense delight of
Mckinley and his cabinet
The New Orleans judge dismissed
the suit on the ground that there was
neither law nor precedent to stop the
selling of mules by American citizens
to British agents or to prevent the
shipment of the useful animals for war
purposes in private merchant ships
to,any part of the world. He declared
that private citizens of neutral ma
ton can lawfully sell supplies to bel
ligercnts and quoted Jefferson to that
effect as follows:
Our 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
caliings, the only means. perhaps. of
their subsistence. because Il war exists
in foreign and distant countries in
which we have no concern, would
scarcely be expected. 1t would be hard
in principle and impossible in practice.
The law of nations therefore, respect
ing the rights Of those ut peace does
not require from them such an internal
arrangement in their occupation"
The judge went on to say that no
precedent had been cited by the law
yrrs for the Beers presenting issues
similar to those of the case before him.
Even il mules are cOntraband of war
he thought they could be shipped I'M
der the circumstances without any
violation of international treaties. Ac-
conling to the treaty of 1871 between
the United States and Great Britain a
neutral government is bound not to
permit either belligerent to make use
OF its ports as to the base of naval
operations against the other, or for
military supplies or arms. or the re-
cruiting of men. but it relates only to
Il hostile expedition or the eQuippiny
Of naval vessel like the Alabama.
which left Il British port during the
Civil War to prey upon American COM
mercc.
From our limited knowledge of law
we think Judge Parlange rendered an
impartial decision in the case. An
other district Judge sat with him. and
r"ncurrcd in the opinion. Whether the
administration eXcrted any influence.
on the court is only a matter of con-
lecture. The only thing the Beers can
do is To seize the mules on the way to
South Africa, but as they have no war
ships that is impossible. The only
redress left them is to capture the ami
mails when hauling provisions for the
enemy along the veldts. If they sue
coed in that it is the British who will
sustain the loss and not the shippers.
as American citizens who sold the
animals will have tire price of them in
their pockets.
Julian Pauncefote and John Hay
must have felt delighted on hearing of
the decision. The British government
was in trepidatiOn and by way of
bluff threatened to boycott American
fresh beef for the use of the army.
The fact is that it must use American
beef not only for the army but for the
people ut home. Not only doeS it de-
pend on the United States for it's
meats but for it's other elibles, for
Great Britain and it's colonies do not
raise enough to feed the fifty million
population of the United Kingdom 1t
Is not necessary. therefore. for AM
bnssador Choatc to request the British
merchants to import fuodstufrs from
the United States.