rican the love of moncy, or desire of eluding the payment of his debts, as the motive of engaging in the war. No, sir. He had nobler and better views. But he thinks himself well entitled to those debts, from the laws and usages of nations, as a compensation for the injuries he has sustained. There is a sad drawback on this property saved. A national debt for seventeen years, considerable taxes, which were profusely laid during the war on lands and slaves; and, since the peace, we have been loaded with a heavy taxation. I know that I advocate this cause on a very advantageous ground, when I speak of the right of salvage. The cargo on board the wrecked vessel belongs to the British; it will have been saved for them! but the salvage is due to us only. If you take it on the ground of interest—you may hold as a pledge—you may retain for salvage. If you take it on the scale of the common law, or of national law—you may oppose damages to debts—retain the debts, to retribute and compensate for the injuries they have done you. I have now got over, and I trust established, the first point; that is, that debts in common wars are subject to forfeiture, and much more so in a revolution war like the American war.”[1]
Having established his first position, he presents his next point thus: “My next point is, that the British debts being so forfeited (as I conceive) can only be revived by the treaty; and unless they be so revived, they
- ↑ These copious extracts from the report on Mr. Henry’s first point, are deemed necessary, to give the reader an idea of his mode of argumentation, so far as it can be furnished by this report. It would be trespassing on the indulgence of the proprietor of the manuscript, (which has never been published,) and trespassing, too, perhaps on the patience of that portion of my readers, who can find no enjoyment in legal discussion, to pursue any farther this extended mode of analysis.
