position is supported by the following authorities/^ He then cites and reads copious extracts from Gro- tius and Vattel, .which seem to support his position de- cisively — and then proceeds thus: " This authority decides in the most clear and satisfactory manner, that, as a nation, we had powers as extensive and unlimited as any nation on earth. This great writer, after stating the equality and independence of nations, and who are, and who are not enemies, does away the distinction between corporeal and incoiporeal rights, and declares that war gives the same right over the debts, as over the other goods of an enemy. He illustrates his doctrine by the instance of Alexander's remitting to the Thessa- lians, a debt due by them to the Theban common- wealth — This is a case in point — For supposing the subjects of Alexander had been indebted to the The- bans, might he not have remitted the debts due by them to that people, as well as the debts due tliem by his alhes, the Thessalians.^ Let me not be told that he was entitled to the goods of the Thebans, because he had conquered them. If he could remit a debt due by those whose claim of friendship was so inferior, those who were only attached to him by the feeble ties of contingent and temporary alliance — if his Macedonians, his immediate and natural subjects, were indebted to the Thebans, could he not have remitted their debts? This author states in clear, unequivocal terms, by fair inference and unavoidable deduction, that when two nations are at war, either nation has a right, according to the laws of nature and nations, to remit to its own citizens, debts which they may owe to the enemy: If this point wanted further elucidation — it is pointedly proved by the authority which I first quoted from Gro- tius, that it is an inseparable concomitant of sovereign
�� �
