AVES ISLAND.' 243 



we only ask that a letter of request, of the character heretofore indi- 

 cated in my letter of the 10th instant, may he sent open to that gov- 

 ernment, with copies of all the proofs duly authenticated hy such 

 person or in such mode as the department may deem proper, which 

 letter of request, (lettre de requite) according to the formula of estah- 

 lished precedents, should designate a reasonable time (and the claim- 

 ants think thirty days amply sufficient) within which Venezuela should 

 make satisfaction of the claim to the claimants, or conceding the lia- 

 bility, leave the question of amount to be ascertained and determined 

 by the United States, according to the law of nations. 



If this be done, and it should be deemed necessary that any general 

 or special legislation regulating the mode of procedure in cases of 

 special reprisal is indispensable to enable the executive to act, this case 

 may" then be back in time to be submitted to Congress at next session, in 

 order to procure such law. If the time for answer is not limited, and 

 further delay is allowed, the case cannot be so returned in season for 

 congressional action. 



I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient ser- 

 vant, 



H. S. SANFORD. 



Hon. Lewis Cass, 



Secretary of State. 



P. S. Full extracts from the authorities referred to in this brief, and 

 most of them translated, (for another object,) can be forwarded to the 

 department for its temporary use in reference, (to be returned when 

 requested, and to be kept exclusively in charge of the department till 

 returned,) if it is desired, as facilitating its investigations. 



H. S. S. 



P. S. Shelton and Sampson & Tappan, 



vs. Y Claim for indemnity. 



The Eepublic op Venezuela. J 



Brief, by claimants, on application for ^'lettre de requete," and special 

 reprisals for spoliation at Shelton's Isle in December, 1854. 



In the '_' Points ' ' submitted with the letter of the 10th instant, no ref- 

 erence is intended to he made to what are designated "^ general com- 

 missions of reprisals," or 'betters of marque," sometimes called ''ex- 

 traordinary letters of reprisal," as contradistinguished from ''special 

 or ordinary letters of reprisal in time of peace." The difference be- 

 tween the two remedies, and the distinctions between the cases in which 

 they are respectively appropriate, are all settled by the approved 

 authorities upon international law. Sciolistic essayists, and those 

 authors whose want of legal acumen and discrimination and limited 

 research have restrained them from referring in any but general terms 

 to reprisals, have often confounded these different and distinct ; whereas, 

 in their character, objects, mode of procedure, results, and effects, they 



