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.