if then Great Britain, (hall have com- ■ Butted acts towards the United .States, j which furnifti just cause of war, the Uni ted States possets the right confidently with the laws of nations, to exercise any act towards Great Britain, which would be juftifiable in a state of war. The U nited States having received the injuries, are authorised to feleA such measures and means as they may deem the molt expedi cnt f#r felf-prefervation and indemnifica tion. Reprisal is within their power All other means of redtefs, are without their power. In such a state of things, reprisal is a right—reprisal is a duty• An obje&ion more plaulible than solid, has been made to this course of reasoning, that the individuals who will be the immedi-.j ate obje&s of the reprisal, have not been the immediate agents of the aggteffion. The laws of nations state, that the pro perty of individuals, is as much a subjeCt of reprisal, as the property of the aggres sing nation ; but as the nation is the im mediate agent in the wrong, the individu al who fuftainsan injury thereby, becomes intitled to recompence from his nation. The nation which commits the wrong, by this process will ultimately sustain the lois. Hence in the present cafe, the innocent and unfufpe&ing vi&ims of the United States, have received losses from the law less aggressions of Great Britain, and the question is, whether they shall finally sus tain these.losses, without any clear claim of indemnification upon the government of the United States ? Or whether the losses (hall be transferred to Britirti fub jc£ts, who will thereby poflefs the cleared claim for recompcnce, from the Biitifh government ? He thought the law 3ot God, the laws of morality, the laws of reason, the laws of nations, would all pro nounce, that thr British Government which had done the -wrong, Jhouhl ajford the re camping. Mr. Giles said, that if the losses were to be ultimately borne by the individual fubjefts of Great Britain, the remedy would feetn to be a lrarfh one ; but even in that cafe, the only alternatives left to the United States would be to fay, whe ther their own citizens, to whom they have promised proteft'on fho ild finally sustain the lofles, or the Briti/h fubjcßs, f> whom they have promised no projec tion. But the situation of the individu als, who may be the fubjedts of reprisal, is greatly meliorated, by the coniidera tion of their just claim to recompence from their own government ; which he had no doubt but they would ultimately obtain, if they were put into a situation to de mand it; but if they (hould ultimately be denied justice, it would be a confutation ■ to reflect, that it was the in just ice of their own Government, not of the Uni ted State?. He observed, that a reprisal in the way proposed, flood upon the fame ground as the invafton of the property, in every o ther cafe did, and was juftified upon the fame principle, to wit, Self-prefervation. He presumed if there existed an acknow ledged state of war, letters of marque and reprisal, commiflions to privateers, &c. would be deemed juftifiable and ex pedient, and that no discrimination would be made betweeu the property of indivi duals and the property of the nation ; yet the -invasion of the rights of property in that cafe, would be as palpable, as in the cafe of the reprisal proposed, with this aggravation", that in that cafe, the indivi dual sustaining the loss, would not be in titled to ultimate recompence from the go vernment—in the cafe proposed he would be intitled to recompence. He observed, that the British nation had not discovered this delicate discrimination between na tional and individual property, in their late inftruftions given to their privateers and {hips of war, although they had sus tained no wrong ; and he thought their conduit an example in point for the Uni ted States, who had received the injury and committed none. A gentleman (Mr. Smith, S. C.) yes terday attempted to make a diftin&ion between vessels at sea, and other pioperty; although he acknowledged that at the firft blush he could discern no dittinction in principle 1 . Mr. Giles said, that every species of property, flood on the fame principle, the promise made by the government to afford protection to all property—the fame rights are attached to every species of property, and the government is bound to afford an equal security to all. A sentence read yesterday, by a gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) from a writer upon the laws of nations, clearly lhews the fight, of nation to inake rcpriinl ilpjn nil the effetts of i individuals of an aggfcffiog nation indil | criminately, Jfock in the public Jutih ; which has Ikl*ii exempted, undev the idea of its being a pledge in the hands of go vernment, —the wi*h}K>kl:nfc of which, would be a breach of public faith. He believed that the practice and policy of some nations, might have given rife to this diftindtion, btec» St