The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-04-03
TIL E i N ION.

But besides lis difficulty about the collection OF these
military contributions at the Mexican ports military
possession, the lntellgencer is greatly troubled about
their disbursement proposed by the President to be
made under the direction OF the War and Navy Depart
mens Such disbursement is, in the ntellgencers
Judgment 'an eypedient for eyadng avoiding respon
sibty to the laws, Here is It's language upon the sub
ject:
dbnrsed by the government bat in consequence OF appro
The constitution OF the United Sates But the
of Texas by of Congress- and he invasion OF Mex
leo by the act of the President who fly the
stituon 1t almost of date, and has become very
nearly obsolete Besides If the money TO be collected Is 10
stead OF sab,reasrers, il the treasury And if j.
not ne the treasury how can II be drawn Gf q !. II
case the reader will perceive which clearly eudes to
rather, leaps over both the law aud the constitution
We trust that the Federal journals throughout the
country will receive with due equanimy this solemn an
nouncement OF their metropolitan compeer that since the
annexation of Texas" and the "invason of Mexico"
nobody cares fig for the constitution" Some Federal
doctrines and dongs Of late had led suspect such TO
be the sentiment of that party. But we were not quite
prepared to see il so soon and frankly set down in
print by the Federal organ. For ourselves. however,
since we profess to regard the constitution not ye,
quite 'out OF date Obsolete glad to perceive
that in lust respect TO the constitution the administration
intends TO regard these duties collected by our military
authorities at the Mexican ports strictly military con-
tyibutions destined to sustain the army the prosecu-
ton of the war; and destined TO other purpose. As
such military contributions what is their proper and le-
climate destination Is it the treasury OF the UNI
ted States, or is the military chest OF the army
Suppose that General Taylor General Scott should by
authority of the President levy a military contribution
81 Info hose
custody would such contribution naturally go for dis
bursement and use' Plainly, by due course OF law
would be turned over to the Ordnance Department OF
the army in Mexico, TO be held and dsbursed Tor the
use of the army, due vouchers, by that department
Suppose the contributions were levied IN the shape OF
provisions of transportation to whom would 1t
60 and who would be responsible for its disbursement
Why, plainly, the Quartermaster's Department OF the
army which seized it and levied it. Suppose the military
chest of the Mexican army were captured, or military
contribution in money levied by army upon the Mex
leans to whom would these funds co. and who would be
responsible for their disbursement Why, plainly, the
Paymasters Department of the army in Mexico. And
all these departments would be, the lnelligencer
well knows responsible to the commanding general of the
army who in his turn, would be responsible to the War
Department and to the Executive The case OF revenues
collected at Mexican ports in military possession
military contribution lepied for the support Of tie army,
is precisely the same case Collected as such military
contributions will be- not under the laws of the
United States as enacted by Congress, but, the contra
ry by mere military authority, growing out of military
occupation and for military purposes their disbursement
and the accountability for them, plainly belong TO these
departments of the government which charged with
the conduct and the responsibility of the If these
duties were collected by laws of Congress- establishing
tariff of duties at the Mexican ports, while In our mill
tay possession, such laws might perhaps give to the
revenues accring different direction and character
1t unnecessary however, to consider the propr
ETY. of such legislation in the case. Congress has not
egslated The revenues to be collected are military
contributions levied by military authority, and of course
collected and dsbursed by the military agents of the
enment As pertinent to THIS view OF the subject and
as bearing upon the rghuness of the whole plan pro-
posed by the President, submit to the lnteligencer
the following high legal authorities, and the nferences
which appear to deducible from them:
L. A seaport of Mexico, captured and occupied by
troops OF the United States whilst in their possession,
NOT poyt of Merico The laws of Mexico "no
longer be rghtfuy enforced or be obligatory on the in
habitans who remain and submit to the conque or
limited States Us. Hayward, I'd Galison, p. SOIL
@ Such seaport on the other hand, cannot be deemed
port OF the United States, port within the domin
ions of the United States, for il has not permanently pass
ed under their sovereignty. 1t could only be by
nuncation in treaty Of peace, by possession so
long and permanent as should afford conclusive proof
that the territory altogether abandoned by its
ereign had been retrievably subdued, that could
be considered incorporated into the domnions of the
captors Meanwhile, the right which they have over
the place, 'the right of superior force and the
glance. ibidl
This right is ga temporary right OF possession and
government until pacitcaton. Clark us. the United
States, Sd Washington, p. Iol.l
A. 1.-The title by conquest is acquired and maintained
by force. The conqueror pescrbes its limits Humani-
ty however, acting on public opinion, has established
as general rule that the conquered shall not be wanton
ly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as
eligible compatible mih the objects Of The conquest
By Chief Justice Marshall Johnson u.s. Mcintosh, sh
Wheaton, p 5S9,]
Applying this general rule, in connection with the fore
going principles TO the of seaport of the enemys
their occupation, the following propositions obviously
suit therefrom -
ls That it is the duty of the capior TO permit COM
merce TO go at such seaport, far this shall be |
compatible with the objects for which the place occu-
pied