“Recapture or reprisal is another species of remedy, by the mere act of the party injured.... But as the public peace is a superior consideration to any one man’s private property; and as, if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons, it is provided that this natural right of recaption shall never be exerted, where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society. If, for instance, my horse is taken away, and I find him in a common, a fair, or a public inn, I may lawfully seize him to my own use; but I cannot justify breaking open a private stable, _or entering on the grounds of a third person, to take him_, should he be feloniously stolen; _but must have recourse to an action at law_.”--_Comm._ 4, 5. But the opinion expressed by me on this point does not need the authority of any name to support it; and the illustration which I gave is not only intelligible to every sensible man, but is also apposite. I said “a man may not lose his horse, [i. e. his property in a horse,] without a right to this trial.” Mr. Webster’s comment is, that this case, “if it have any analogy to the matter,” means, that if a man’s horse “_stray_ into his neighbor’s field, _he cannot lead him back without a previous trial by jury to ascertain the right_.” Was ever the plain meaning of a sentence more exactly changed about, end for end? Mr. Webster may pitch somersets with his own doctrines, but he has no right to pitch them with mine. I said a man may not _lose_ his horse, or his property in a horse, without a right to the trial by jury. He says I said, a man cannot _find_ or _retake_ a lost horse, without a previous trial! _Dulce est desipere in loco._ Or, it is pleasant to see a grave senator play upon words;--though there should be some wit to redeem it from puerility.