Nor do I discuss the immorality and brutality too naturally engendered by a system whose inspiration is booty. Here I content myself with the words of General Halleck, in his excellent summary of International Law. “But, even with these precautions, privateering is usually accompanied by abuses and enormous excesses. The use of privateers, or private armed vessels under letters of marque and reprisal, has often been discussed by publicists and text-writers on International Law, and has recently been made the subject of diplomatic correspondence and negotiation between the United States and the principal European powers. The general opinion of text-writers is, that privateering, though contrary to national policy and the more enlightened spirit of the present age, is, nevertheless, allowable under the general rules of International Law. _It leads to the worst excesses and crimes, and has a most corrupting influence upon all who engage in it_, but cannot be punished as a breach of the Law of Nations. _The enlightened opinion of the world is most decidedly in favor of abolishing it_, and recent events lead to the hope that all the commercial nations of both hemispheres will unite in no longer resorting, in time of war, to so barbarous a practice.”[141] There is another American authority I ought not to omit. I refer to Chancellor Kent, who in his much quoted Commentaries has recorded his judgment. If I chose to cross the ocean, I might add indefinitely to this testimony; but I confine myself to our own countrymen, so that you shall see privateering as judged by Americans. Here are the words of the great jurist.