“Armed intervention consists _in threatened or actual force_, employed or to be employed by one state in regulating or determining the conduct or affairs of another. Such an employment of force is virtually _a war_, and must be justified or condemned upon the same general principles as other wars.”[78] Applying these principles to existing facts already set forth, it is easy to see that the belligerent intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Dominica, maintaining the usurper Baez in power, especially against Cabral, was contrary to acknowledged principles of International Law, and that the belligerent intervention between Dominica and Hayti was of the same character. Imagine our Navy playing the fantastic tricks on the coast of France which it played on the coasts of San Domingo, and then, still further, imagine it entering the ports of France as it entered the ports of Hayti, and you will see how utterly indefensible was its conduct. In the capital of Hayti it committed an act of war hardly less flagrant than that of England at the bombardment of Copenhagen. Happily blood was not shed, but there was an act of war. Here I refer to the authorities already cited, and challenge contradiction. To vindicate these things, whether in Dominica or in Hayti, you must discard all acknowledged principles of International Law, and join those who, regardless of rights, rely upon arms. Grotius reminds us of Achilles, as described by Horace:-- “Rights he spurns As things not made for him, claims all by arms”; and he quotes Lucan also, who shows a soldier exclaiming:-- “Now, Peace and Law, I bid you both farewell.” The old Antigonus, who, when besieging a city, laughed at a man who brought him a dissertation on Justice, and Pompey, who exclaimed, “Am I, when in arms, to think of the laws?”[79]--these seem to be the models for our Government on the coasts of San Domingo. USURPATION OF WAR POWERS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.