Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1847-04-24
THE PRESIDENTS ORDER IN COUNCIL.
PROM THE BALTIMORE AMERICAN.

FROM THE BALTIMORE AMERICAN.
The right to levy military contributions enemys
try held by adverse possession right Of not disputed
The right belongs the General in command of the occupy
ing army What is essential to the point in question
Is there to be controversy about the form and manner in
which the contributions are levied
The President COMMANDMENTS chief Of the Army and
Navy has imposed system of exacions upon the
Of the Mexican ports If Gen. TAYLOR should lay the whole
country from the Sierre Madre the Rio Grande under
tbuton for the subsistence Of his army, the exacon would
be far more severe yet his right to do cannot be question
ed. Are we to discriminate between contribution for the
support of army, for the support of which is the
thing, levied the agriculture of country, and
tribution of similar levied the of
country If there be any difference point of principle the
military right would be stronger in favor of the latter and for
the that the exaction upon agriculture would be
seizure of private property while the other would be cons
cation of the of the hostile Government Instead of
distressing the Mexican farmer the genius of civilized war,
which strikes not at individuals, would find congena
function in cutting of the supplies Of the Mexican Treasury,
thus parazng the of the adversary by serng its snes
Does the Presidents system Of duties for the ports Mexico
look too much like tariff BILL suggesting by the resemblance
ideas Of legislation blended with the powers Of Congress- and
repugnan the constitutional of the Executive autho-
ry Then tits the FORM after ALL which calls forth objections.
One Of Gen. ScorTs first acts, after taking possession Of
Vera Cruz to establish scale Of duties for that port sub
ect to the future direction of his Government The General
did not dream that he exercising unlawful power In
truth, what else could he do He must allow the Mexican
system OF imports to remain he must abolish all duties and
throw the port he must fix system of his own,
adapted in his judgment the of the he
did In the nt place, if he had allowed the Mexican system
to remain to whom would the duties be made payable What
would have been done with the money II can hardly be
supposed that Gen ScorT would have been warranted in al
lowing the duties to be paid to Mexican collectors for the bene
fit Of the Mexican Treasury IL he had thrown the port opsn
the exercise power would have been quite great that
by which he fixed system Of duties He did what
obviously required in humble Judgment by the
dictates Of reason, proprety, and the rights of war.
Now, the President has merely done for all the captured
ports OF Mexico what Gen. ScoTT did for Vera Cruz As
commandernche of all forces upon Mexican soil he has
made general rule while Scott, commanding in particu
lar place. has made special regulation. Further Gen.
Scott devised and enforced his system of exacons Vera
Cruz subject to the approval Of his Government home
in like the President has devised and enforced his
system of exacons the whole of Mexico subject
the approval of Congress at its coming session.
Here find sufficient sedave for all the fears and doubts
and msgvings which the sensitive might indulge in their
terror of Executive usupaon in their lest the
institutions OF the country and public liberty might he falling
into reckless hands For part consider the be
ties Of the Republic TO be Of rather too sawa growth be
easily endangered either by accident design, and
less apprehensve this point belief that when the
nation shall permit them to be lost they will not be worth
tanning
We give to the preceding argument of the Balt-
more American the conspicuous place in our col
umns to which the high character of that paper en-
titles it when it agrees with us upon any great
public question, and still more when its opinion
conflicts with ours as in this case it does so point
edly; differing i'll this respect, far we have OBJ
served from the great majority of the papers classed
as Wing. OF the journals of that character, many
have, is true, expressed no opinion upon the great
constitutional principle involved-the question, IN
fact, whether the Constitution is of any authority
in state of war-either because, being so sud-
denly sprung upon them, they have not looked
to to what disastrous conclusions this doctrine
would lcad us, or because they yet doubt upon the
question. But, when such defence Of the Exec.
utive is presented by journal politically opposed
to the Administration, it is not to be wondered al
that the government paper, not having been able, by
any invention of its own, to sustain the act of the
President, should eagerly lay hold of the plank
which l. thrown out for its relief, and cling to it fol
succor and for safety. So has done the Union
In that paper we find the american article copied
entire; the Union" having intended itself to
take notice of our last article on the subject
but wisely giving the pas to the " American" To
which paper, therefore, we reply:
We quite regret that our intelligent and much
respected neighbour the Editor of the American
adopts the view which we have copied from that
paper Of what we have called the " Order in Coun-
Gil" We confess that that exercise of power by
the Executive, at the very first moment we saw it.
struck us high.handed and dangerous usurpaton
and we confess, too, that the have reflected
upon it, the stronger have our impressions become.
We are not lawyers; but we have brought to this
case what little we know Of the laws and usages OF
nations, and have especially considered the ques-
ton, well as we could, in the light Of the Consti-
tuition of the United States. This last is the point
of view in which the act Of the President has APP
Pearcd, and does still appear, wholly unustifabe.
The question is not, What power the Govern
ment of country may exercise over conquered
territory. But the question is, What power may
the President of the United States, of his own au-
thorlty, exercise over territory conquered by the
arms of the United States. That Congress may
make rules for conquered territories, as well for
captures on land and water" there is no doubt. But
where is the President found to possess this power
Our neighbol regards the case as ono of a common
military contribution" That is not at all our idea
of the matter. When has it happened, heretofore,
that susfe,n of Commercial Regulations has been