treaty, were usurpations of national sovereignty, and violations of
neutral rights, a repetition of which it was the duty of the
government to prevent.

It was also agreed that the efficacy of the laws should be tried
against those citizens of the United States who had joined in
perpetrating the offence.

[Sidenote: Opinions of the Cabinet in relation thereto.]

The question of restitution, except as to 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.