FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39  
40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>   >|  
the Grange, was more dubious. The secretary of state and the attorney general contended that, if the commissions granted by Mr. Genet were invalid, the captures were totally void, and the courts would adjudge the property to remain in the former owners. In this point of view, therefore, there being a regular remedy at law, it would be irregular for the government to interpose. If, on the contrary, the commissions were good, then, the captures having been made on the high seas, under a valid commission from a power at war with Great Britain, the original right of the British owner was, by the laws of war, transferred to the captor. The legal right being in the captor, it could only be taken from him by an act of force, that is to say, of reprisal for the offence committed against the United States in the port of Charleston. Reprisal is a very serious thing, ought always to be preceded by a demand and refusal of satisfaction, is generally considered as an act of war, and never yet failed to produce it in the case of a nation able to make war. [Illustration: Martha Washington _From the portrait by James Sharples_ _This is one of the three Sharples portraits of the Washington family and the only good profile of Martha Washington that was painted from life. Martha, who was a few months younger than her husband, is described as having been "amiable in character and lovely in person." By the courtesy of the period she was called Lady Washington, and whether in her own home or at the "federal court," she presided with marked dignity and grace. She died at Mount Vernon, May 22, 1802, having survived her husband two and a half years._ Courtesy Herbert L. Pratt] Admitting the case to be of sufficient importance to require reprisal, and to be ripe for that step, the power of taking it was vested by the constitution in congress, not in the executive department of the government. Of the reparation for the offence committed against the United States, they were themselves the judges, and could not be required by a foreign nation, to demand more than was satisfactory to themselves. By disavowing the act, by taking measures to prevent its repetition, by prosecuting the American citizens who were engaged in it, the United States ought to stand justified with Great Britain; and a demand of further reparation by that power would be a wrong on her part. The circumstances under which these equipments had been made, in the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39  
40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Washington
 

States

 

demand

 

Martha

 

United

 

reprisal

 
captor
 

offence

 

Britain

 

commissions


committed

 

Sharples

 

husband

 

taking

 
nation
 

reparation

 

captures

 

government

 

federal

 

presided


repetition
 

marked

 

dignity

 
amiable
 
character
 

lovely

 

disavowing

 

measures

 

person

 

satisfactory


equipments

 

called

 

judges

 

required

 

foreign

 

courtesy

 

period

 
Vernon
 

constitution

 

congress


sufficient

 

Admitting

 
citizens
 
younger
 

importance

 

vested

 
justified
 

require

 
engaged
 

Herbert