No better testimony to the practice of nations can be found than the words of Vattel, whose work, presenting the subject in familiar form, has done more, during the last century, to fashion opinion on the Law of Nations than any other authority. Here it is briefly. “If there be any nation that _makes an open profession_ of trampling justice under foot, of despising and violating the rights of others, whenever it finds an opportunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to unite in order to humble and chastise it.”[131] “_To form and support an unjust pretension_ is to do an injury only to the nation whom such pretension concerns; to mock at justice in general is to injure all nations.”[132] “The power that assists an odious tyrant, that declares for an unjust and rebellious people, undoubtedly violates duty.”[133] “As to those monsters who under the title of sovereigns render themselves the scourges and horror of humanity, they are ferocious beasts, of whom every brave man may justly clear the earth.”[134] “If the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence, and to oppress all those who do not embrace it, the Law of Nature forbids us to favor that religion, or to unite unnecessarily with its inhuman followers, and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter into _a league against such madmen, to repress such fanatics, who disturb the public repose and menace all nations_.”[135] Nor can you urge this recognition on any principle of _Comity of Nations_. This is an expansive term, into which enters much of the refinements, amenities, and hospitalities of civilization, and also something of the obligations of moral duty. But where an act is prejudicial to national interests, or contrary to national policy, or questionable in morals, it cannot be commended by any consideration of courtesy. A paramount duty must not be betrayed by a kiss. For the sake of comity, acts of good-will and friendship not required by law are performed between nations; but an English court has authoritatively declared that this principle cannot prevail, “where it violates the law of our own country, the Law of Nature, or the Law of God,” and on this exalted ground it was decided that an American slave who had found shelter on board a British man-of-war on the high seas could not be recognized as a slave.[136] The same principle must prevail against recognition of a new slave nation. Nor, finally, can this recognition be urged on any reason of _Peace_. There can be no peace founded on injustice; and any recognition is injustice which will cry aloud, resounding through the earth. You may seem to have peace, but it will be only smothered war, sure to break forth in war more direful than before.