njury.

Although the commissions, and the captures made under them, were valid
as between the parties at war, they were not so as to the United
States. For the violation of their rights, they had a claim to
reparation, and might reasonably demand, as the reparation to which
they were entitled, restitution of the property taken, with or without
an apology for the infringement of their sovereignty. This they had a
right to demand as a species of reparation consonant with the nature
of the injury, and enabling them to do justice to the party in
injuring whom they had been made instrumental. It could be no just
cause of complaint on the part of the captors that they were required
to surrender a property, the means of acquiring which took their
origin in a violation of the rights of the United States.

On the other hand, there was a claim on the American government to
arrest the effects of the injury or annoyance to which it had been
made accessory. To insist therefore on the restitution of the property
taken, would be to enforce a right, in order to the performance of a
duty.

These commissions, though void as to the United States, being valid as
between the parties, the case was not proper for the decision of the
courts of justice. The whole was an affair between the governments of
the parties concerned, to be settled by reasons of state, not rules of
law. It was the case of an infringement of national sovereignty to the
prejudice of a third party, in which the government was to demand a
reparation, with the double view of vindicating its own rights, and of
doing justice to the suffering party.

They, therefore, were of opinion that, in the case stated for their
consideration, restitution ought to be made.

On the point respecting which his cabinet was divided, the President
took time to deliberate. Those principles on which a concurrence of
sentiment had been manifested being considered as settled, the
secretary of state was desired to communicate them to the ministers of
France and Britain; and circular letters were addressed to the
executives of the several states, requiring their co-operation, with
force if necessary, in the execution of the rules which were
established.

The citizen Genet was much dissatisfied with these decisions of the
American government. He thought them contrary to natural right, and
subversive of the treaties by which the two nations were connected. In
his exposition of these treaties, he