246 AVES ISLAND. 



damages due to tlie Prussian subjects on account of the capture referred 

 to, and the King of Prussia released tlie reprisals. Annexed hereto 

 is a copy of a dispatch from Lord Holderness to Mr. Mitchell, dated 

 May 11, 1756, showing such to be the fact, and which the counsel for 

 claimants in investigations on the subject of the law of reprisals pro- 

 cured from the British foreign office by permission of Lord Clarendon. 



A memorandum of British authorities is annexed. If reference be 

 made to those authorities, what is above stated in respect to ordinary 

 and special, or extraordinary and general reprisals, will be found 

 fully sustained by them. 



Viner, 5, 18 ; quoting Molloy, ch. 2, § 57, and '' 2d General Treatise 

 of Trade, 211." IF. N. Br., p. 114. 2 Co. Inst., 56, 204, 205. 

 4 Co. Inst., 124, 125, 137. 1 Hale's Hist. PI. of Crown, p. 162. 1 

 Ward's Law of Nations, c. 9, p. 294. 3 Hallam's Middle Ages, c. 

 10, pt. 2, p. 332. Stephens' Comm., vol. 2, book 4, pt. 1, § 4, p. 515. 

 1 Blackstone's Comm., c. 7, p. 259, E. ed. 2 Brown's Civil and 

 Adm. Law, c. 7, p. 334. Wildman's Institutes, p. 186, et seq. Pol-- 

 son's Law of Nations, p. 37. Chitty's Law of Nations, p. 73, et seq. 

 3 Phillimore, c. 2, p. ii, &c. 



In France the same principles have been sedulously maintained since 

 the tenth century, and the forms and mode of procedure of French 

 subjects asking the interposition of their government by special letters 

 of reprisal, have been regulated by the royal ordinances of marine. 

 See the French authorities cited in the list annexed, (ut passim.) See 

 also the American authorities, and see several treaties between the 

 United States and other nations recognizing special reprisals. (8 U. S. 

 Statutes at Large, e^ seg., published laws, &c.) See also European 

 authorities cited in list, and many treaties, ancient and modern, be- 

 tween European States recognizing such right therein referred to. 



Not a publicist of repute, prior to the middle of the eighteenth 

 century, questioned the right to issue special letters of reprisal under 

 the law of nations, and that it was a peaceful remedy and preventive, 

 instead of a cause, of war. In numerous treaties between continental 

 States the right was recognized and regulated ; and England has also 

 sanctioned it in the same way. It is true that some few modern the- 

 oretic assayists of the character described in the commencement of this 

 brief, confounding special with general reprisals, have referred to 

 both as an " obsolete' ' remedy, an ' ' ancient practice not recently fol- 

 lowed," and one of whom quite sagaciously insists that to justify its 

 use, there ought to be " in every case a recent treaty' ' between the 

 complaining and delinquent States recognizing it. Some of these 

 writers seem as much at fault in their opinions as to what is the law 

 of nations, as with respect to their opinions, as to what ought to be 

 that law. One of them just referred to (Sir James Keddie) has written 

 three volumes about international law, (and writers upon it,) the 

 principal object of which books seems to have been to maintain the 

 British doctrine, hostile to neutral rights, of "the flag not covering 

 the cargo," and to berate all who maintain the principle of "free 

 ships, free goods." His inconsistency is manifest in condemning 

 reprisals as "ancient" and "obsolete," and his contending that the- 

 doctrine of "the flag not covering the cargo" is the true doctrine. 



