248 AVES ISLAND. 



based, if the State preparing to adopt it, whilst it refuses to submit to 

 wrong, asks for nothing that is not right. 



Those writers who advance the opinion that the resort to special 

 reprisals is "obsolete," must have omitted to advert to the constant 

 exercise of the right to resort to such remedy by European nations up 

 to this day, shown by the numerous cases which have occurred even 

 within the last decade, and some of which are referred to in the works 

 most recently published on the laws of nations. 1 Cussy, Phases et 

 Causes CeUhres, p. 126 ; 2 ib., p. 56, 486. 3 Phill. Comm., p. 11, 

 &c; ch. II., §§ 22, 23, &c. Hazlett & Eoche's Manual, pp. 89 to 96. 



The right is founded upon the immutable principle of the law of na- 

 tions, that every sovereign State possesses the right to redress its 

 wrongs by just means, and this particular remedy has been adopted to 

 avoid the necessity of a resort to war. A sound and just principle 

 cannot die. It might as well be contended that because a State has 

 long maintained peace, she lost the right to resort to war ; that such 

 just right and remedy had become "obsolete." It might as well be 

 said that because a State has failed in the fulfillment of the duty of 

 protecting its citizens or subjects, (reciprocal upon their allegiance,) 

 therefore her right to do so when she becomes awakened to a just sense 

 of that duty, could not be exercised, because the practice had with her 

 "-fallen into disuetude," and thence "become obsolete." Special 

 reprisals are not "obsolete." The law of nations allows and sanctions 

 them. They are recognized by numerous treaties, ancient and modern, 

 and constant practice to this day maintains them. And with refer- 

 ence to the government of the United States this remedy is peculiarly 

 appropriate. It is a remedy for the protection of the citizen. As to 

 those governments administered more for the benefit of the rulers than 

 for that of the people, there may be reasons for its abandonment, by 

 those rulers, that do not exist with the functionaries of the federal 

 government of the United States. There are a class of naval and mil- 

 itary persons who look to open war as the proper remedy in all cases 

 of wrongs by a State, and these may deride this conservative remedy ; 

 And some diplomatists may think there is greater superiority and effi- 

 cacy in protracted negotiation and reiterated remonstrance, voluminous 

 correspondence and interminable discussion, than in "special repris- 

 als;" and some may regard arbitration (even against all experience) 

 as the most certainly just remedy, and as the most easy and efi'ectual. 

 But it is enough to answer all these suggestions by urging the right 

 of the injured citizen to insist that recourse shall be had in his behalf 

 to the admitted law of nations, and the established practice under it, 

 and to cite the course of one of the most illustrious chief magistrates of 

 this confederacy (General Jackson, in 1834) against one of the most 

 formidable powers in the world, maintaining all we contend for. 



II. That special reprisals are appropriate and consistent with a state 

 of peace, and, if justly resorted to, do not constitute a casus belli, or 

 tend to war, is fully proved by the authorities, British and European, 

 and also American. 



All the confusion existing on this point is attributable to the con- 

 founding ordinary and special reprisals, in time of peace, with extraor- 

 dinary and general reprisals, or letters of marque, in time of war, or 



