The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-04-14
NAY SELL TO BELLIGERENTS
NO BASIS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
FOR SUIT BROUGHT AT NEW
ORLEANS
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION
Troubles OF the BOer Republics With
Great Britain Are Not the Bus
mess of "a United States
Judge.


Parlange in the United States superior
court today handed down decision dis
missing the suit for injunction brought
by Boer representatives here with a
view to preventing the shipment of mules
and horses out of New Orleans to the
British army in South Africa
Judge Parlange holds that the trans
actions between citizens of the United
States and the British government were
conducted under the order of private
citizenship, and that the courts had alb
solutely no jurisdiction to interfere The
horses and mules, the court said, were
bought in a neutral territory Judge
Parlange continues:
MAY SELL TO BELLIGERENTS
IF the complainants could be heard to
assert here rights personal to themselves
in the territory invaded, and if the mules
and horses involved in this cause are
munitions of war all of which is dis
puted by the defendants, it would be-
come necessary to determine whether
the United States intended by the dec
Iaratlon OF the treaty (of Washington,
May s, 1S1) TO SubVert the well eStab-
hShed principle of international law that
the private citizens of neutral nation
can lawfully sell supplies to belligerents
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 de-
rangement of and injury to the COM
merce of our citizens, whenever two or
more foreign nations should go to war;
and 1t would seem that there is nothing
IN the treaty, especially when it's history
and purposes are considered which would
warrant the belief that the United States
insisted upon inserting therein a new
principle of international law from
which the greatest damage might result
TO the commerce of this country, and
which was absolutely different from and
antagonStic to the rule and policy which
the government of this country has here
tofore strenuously and invariably fol-
lowed.
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 authori-
ties in support of the foregoing, and con-
tinues:
ANCIENT PRECEDENT.
The principle has been adhered 70 b
the executive department of the eoTorp
Inent from the time when Mr.. Jefferson
was secretary of state to the nrecnnt
Ga5: Ia3 MT MT Jefferson said in 1893: Our citi-
HelS nave always been free to make
Vend and export arms. It Is the con
stant occupation and livelihood of some
80 ~ IiieIn. 10 suppress their calings. the
pfilLy fy means, perhaps, of their subsistence
pecduSe war exists in foreign and dis,
taht countries in which we have no CON
TSpmii T5oiii7 YOU'D scarcely be expected. It
would be hard in principle and innossi
pie IN practice. The law of nafi0ns
therefore respecting the rights of those
@1,otP a. peace does not require from them
SGch an internal derangement in thnir
occupation In the same effect are MI
InerouS expressions and declarations 70
1ne,,t me tAecatlVe e department Of the govern
nent from the earliest period of tha
country to the present time 40
AtIdaVfts in the cause purport to show
t;athe tnat the vessels which make the eXpor-
t:Iioh OF mules and horses Of which tba
ElilS complain. are private ,rercJ,1+1 ,.[ tlde
se!s; that they are commanded hv +heir
uSuaI olIlcers, appointed and paid nv the
Ts,In1 ;; tnat they are manned by their
I9udI private crews which are paid nv
the owners; that they are not eouinned
- +or "dr; !hat they are not in the mill
troiIoS ,1nX service l. Of Great Britain nor con
IrolIed by the naval authorities of that
nation; that they carry the mules all
horseS as they would carry any other
cargo and that the mules or HOSES are
70 be ldnued, not on the territory of tho
South African republic or the Oran@e
tree State, but in Cape Colony. which is
territory belonging to Great Britain.
HAVE NO CASE.
IF these affidavits set out the facts
truly, 1t is difficult to see how a cause Of
complaint can arise. If a beIligerent NAV
come to the country and buv muni+ionss
of war. it seems clear that he NAV er-
port them as freight in private merchant
vessels of his own or anv other nation
as cargo could be exported Nv the gen'
eral public. ee''
No precedent has been cited to the
Soul l, WHICH. III It's opinion, could even
remotely sustain the cause of the COM
EIalnants. No case has been cited nor
Go believe that any could have been
clted, presenting issues similar to those
Oh this cause. The three conlnlainancS
are private citizens; it is true that tho
complainant, Pierce, AYERS that he is con-
SUI general Of the Orange Free STATE.
but his demand is exclusively personal
one and he must be deemed to be suing
in his personal capacity. They own nroIt,
erty in the South African republic ana
the Orange Free State. They fear that
The war: If continued, will result in the
OBSTRUCTION of their property They be-
leVe that If the shipments of mules and
horses from this port are stopped the
war VIII cease; they claim that by virtue
or declaration Of international law con-
tanned in an International treaty to which
the foreign countries in which their prop
erty Is situated were not parties thew
nave the personal right to enioin the
shipments the purpose of stopping the
war and thus saving their property from
the destruction which they apprehend
would result to it by the continuation of
the war When complainants' cause is
thus anaIyzed and the nature of the al
legged right under the treaty is consider
ed, it is obvious that a court of equity
cannot take cognizance of the cause
i am clearly of the opinion that this
cause is not within the cognizance of
this court and for that reason the ruIe
nisi must be denied"