The same principle has received most authentic declaration in the recent judgment of an able magistrate in a case of Prize for a violation of the blockade. I refer to the case of the _Amy Warwick_, tried in Boston, where Judge Sprague, of the District Court, expressed himself as follows. “The United States, as a nation, have full and complete belligerent rights, which are in no degree impaired by the fact that their enemies owe allegiance, and have superadded the guilt of treason to that of unjust war.”[13] Among all the judges called to consider judicially the character of this Rebellion, I know of none whose opinion is entitled to more consideration. Long experience has increased his original aptitude for such questions, and made him an authority. There is an earlier voice, which, even if all judicial tribunals had been silent, would be decisive. I refer to Hugo Grotius, who, by his work “_De Jure Belli ac Pacis_,” became the lawgiver of nations. Original in conception, vast in plan, various in learning, and humane in sentiment, this effort created the science of International Law, which, since that early day, has been softened and refined, without essential change in the principles then enunciated. His master mind anticipated the true distinction, when, in definition of War, he wrote as follows. “The first and most necessary partition of war is this: that war is _private_, _public_, or _mixed_. Public war is that which is carried on under the authority of him who has jurisdiction; private, that which is otherwise; _mixed, that which is public on one side and private on the other_.”[14]