The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-04-08

s1ressel to the "Aiuiant General Of The Army, WASH
,ngtoo. d. c. This course may greatly expedite their
receiving Official notification OF their appointment
The Duties the Mexican Ports.
Nothing seems calculated to check the reckless
.a,r,s If some of the Federal Presses to aid
AMI encourage our Mexican enemies. The New
York Courier and Enquirer, of Tuesday last, takes
their part openly, through whole column OF protest.
o,o;,t the proposed plan of the administration to
law from the commerce of Mexico military contribu-
,ons for the support Of the 1t is really wonderful
that Federalism should not have enough to see the
inevitable olum and reproach OF such demonstrations
The plan is to shift in the exercise OF an unquestoned
military right part of the burden OF the war, from our
selves TO our enemies. Patriotism and common sense
wouI alike dictate that should avail ourselves OF our
temporary military occupation of any Mexican ports to
cpe at once the resources OF enemy and strength
on our own in any humane mode that warranted by the
lau Of nations Against Just such proceeding is, that
Federalism now has the efontery to lift up its voice
Here is the first point in the argument % made by the
Courier on the subject and it is fair specimen OF all the
rest:
.The PRESIDENT claims authority in the premises as a
'conquerorr and invokes the laws OF nations and me
rights of war his justification for attempting what, ny
esong such he implicitly but conciuslvey adj
mi,s there is no authority for in the constitution
"And yet OF and beyond the constitution what Is me
PRrslpESTl Matchmaking He is WIDELY and entirely
the creature of that instrument His whole power Is de
fined by it, and springs from II; and what II does not J"s''
iy, cannot be justified at all"
Can this mislead anybody even for a moment' Ger
tany the President is the creature of the constitutions;
and by the constitution he is the chief Executive OF the
nation and the commander nchef of its forces, and is
thus vested in time OF war, with the military rights OF the
nation against its foe His power to levy IN conform
,y with the laws OF nations military contributions In the
ports of Mexico is thus defined and Justified by that
clause OF the constitution which devolves on hun both
the right and the duty to conduct the war
little farther on the Courier bubbles against its own
government and in favor OF Mexico, as follows
"The right of blockade clearly defined right of war
and such, after the is sanctioned by Congressnay
chief But the right to trade regulate trade nth the
enemy PORTS is not an ineldent ~ arg shape q ne ga "a,
authority of an act OF Congress"
Here the ursts of the Courier and the urss OF the SUI
preme Court of the United States happen TO hold exactly
opposite opinions. In the Of the United States
Rice, which we cited few days since, Supreme
Court held that the temporary military occupation by
British forces of the port of Casne, in the State OF
Mane did gpe the pocer of the British govern
ment rg hf both "o trade and regulate trade" in
argued the case in favor of this ar right OF the British
government and cited many authorities from the laws
of nations and from the decisions of tribunals applying
those laws The court told him that his authorities
conclusive but needless The court were clear upon the
general principle involved in the question: without ref
to authorities. Now, the military rights in
OF all civilized governments against their enemies
the same. They all defined and sanctioned by the
laws of nations. The municipal constitution OF each
government determines only what department OF that gov
eminent shall have authority to exercise these rights
against the enemy. With us, the legislature declares
recognises the and makes provision for its prosecu
ton, and then the constitution empowers and enons the
Executive to exercise the military rights and power OF the
government against its enemies To levy military conr-
buttons in the shape of duties in the enemy ports, is by
the judgment OF the Supreme Court, one of these same
military rights.
But glad to perceive that all the federal presses
are not so blinded by spirit of faction the Courier
The Baltimore American" has the following clear and IN
dcous article the subject fully admitting the
nghtuness Of the power in question exercised By the
Executive:
"THE TARIFF FOR MExIco.-We observe that some OBJ
econs are urged against the act OF the Presden enorc
ing tariff otducs in the Mexican ports The authority OF
eioned
In this objection we do not Join. A state of war inn
plies all measures Of stringent compulson towards
ey not incompatible with the laws of nations and the
t''ges OF civilized warfare. To lay enemys country
under contribution is ordinary act the part
lahdlng general occupying hostile territory The mode
doing this be OF kind another according the
Probabties OF greater efficiency with least trouble. An
inland region may be subjected of contribution
seaport having large commerce, might invite differ
emf system.
sit would embarrass military operations very much, if
10y eP IN le prosecution OF hostes 10 be delaye
functions, should be had The war, avowed, certain
syh o hostile measures, recognised by the laws OF
Nations is sanctioned by the very which sanctions the
war
" The Mexican authorities being overthrown in n cap
ned Town, say Tampico, what authority is to prevail
mere, except that OF the conquerors And who is to pre-
ScnOe the specific details OF military rule the
handlng geneml9 Is the port OF Tanpco be thrown
pPeno commerce, duties to be levied There
e an authority to decide this question and would
unt the authority which could abolish existing duties
lgh substitute any scale OF new rates, If the wants
convenience OF the army should require it, the President
rs conmander-inchef If number OF Mexican ports Were
ia ne possession of our forces might issue general order
establishing certain levied on imports in Mexican
i" ~ Turing our'occupancy of them"
, we can really perceive constitutional difficulties in
me case ne authority of the President of the limits
war; Is that OF commander hief of the army and navy
Assucb, he has large discretion against the enemy
peR suplec however to the laws of and the rule
anu regulations OF the service. The orders he NAV give
affecting the enemys country are to be JUDGED of accord
lngy Our own constitution and laws will claim vndicn.
uon II any order act of the President
er-n-chie shakespeare within the mi,s OF, ,ha ILLS ~
impair the Legislative authority of Congress- or 10
The proper limits OF the executive functions"
The Albany Argus republishes the Pre- sdenrs Letter 70
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretar repor
with the remark that
The principle is only OF Justice to ourselves
and OF strict right and necessity part but of good
pey andIusce towards other and friendly nations. This