260 AVES ISLAND. 



tioned by the wisdom of ages, may, perhaps, be well adopted in a bad 

 cause, but should never be consented to in a good one. 



These claimants deem it due to themselves, and not disrespectful to 

 the government, to say that in view of the further procrastination and 

 delay consequent on the adoption of such mode of ascertainment of the 

 precise amount justly due to them, and in view of the great additional 

 trouble that would be caused to them, and in view, also, of the increased 

 expense to be incurred, they trust no such reference or arbitrament will 

 be consented to by the United States. 



The claimants suggest, as they conceive it is proper for them to do, 

 that the question of damage in this case should be investigated, as 

 before indicated, in some manner decided by the federal authorities and 

 for their satisfaction, after the formal letter of request is transmitted, 

 and prior to the issuance of letters of reprisal, and that the ultimate 

 investigation and -decision most appropriately and exclusively belongs 

 to the judicial prize tribunals upon the execution of such letters and 

 trial of the proj)erty seized thereon ; and they deprecate an abandon- 

 ment of the established rules and formula practiced under the law of 

 nations, as being unwise, useless, and uncertain, and creating great 

 delay and expense to them. 



X. As before observed, special letters of reprisal are in the nature 

 of a national distress warrant, or a capias ad ivithernam, or writ of 

 foreign attachment, authorizing the seizure and detention of property 

 as a pledge to answer the just claims of the parties who obtain the writ, 

 to be proved by such parties before the court into whose jurisdiction 

 the property is brought. It is an error to suppose the seizure or cap- 

 ture of such property by virtue of the letters of reprisal is absolute. It 

 is no more absolute than the taking of property under the common-laijv 

 writ of replevin; and, in truth, the proceedings in an action of and 

 under a writ of replevin at common law bear a close resemblance to the 

 proceedings under the jus gentium upon special letters of reprisal. (See 

 1 Black. Comm., p. 259, and notes to Am. ed., and 3 ib., p. 146, &c.; 

 3 ib., p. 6, &c., 129, 146, 413, 280, 231. 1 Lord Campbell's Lives of 

 Lord Chancellors, p. 205, before cited.) 



The preliminary caution, with surety demanded of the party seeking 

 a letter of special reprisal, is analogous to the bond or stipulation 

 required of the plaintiff in replevin. And so, too, where the property 

 is replevied from seizure under a distress for rent due. 



The question to be decided by the court is not ordinarily the legality 

 or illegality of the distress, except as dependent upon the fact whether 

 any rent was actually due as claimed, or whether the amount claimed 

 was due, or the distress was unreasonable. And so the court, in case 

 of a seizure by letters of reprisal, determines only the amount of dam- 

 ages due' the cl-aimants, and whether there hath been an abuse of the 

 writ in that regard. 



The property seized is disposed of by the direction of such tribunal, 

 and the proceeds first applied to the payment of the reasonable ex- 

 penses incurred in the case, next to the satisfaction of the claim, and 

 the surplus is to be returned to the State complained of. 



After seizure, it remains in the custody of the laiv till adjudicated 

 upon and disposed of by admiralty court. The seizure is a mere stop- 



