The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-03-19

WASHINGTON, March II, l64S
The Senate-Ihe Merican Tariff QuestiOn-Mr
Sevier

WASHINGTON, March II, ls4S
The Senate-Ihe Merican Tariff Questionable.
Sevier.
Mr.. Berrien gave his reasons to. day for voting
against the treaty. Mr.. Webster delivered at
speech, which, though short, was the best effort
he has made during the session. His argument
went principally to prove the illegality and I'M
constitutionality of the order of the President
to levy taxes in Mexico.
This is very grave question II is, perheps,
well, whether Mr.. Webster and Mr. Calhoun are
right or not, that the attempt be made, neverthe-
less, to curb as much as possible, the exercise of
power, which is at best but implied but yet
some Of the positions taken by those gentlemen
seem scarcely tenable One OF these ls. q at
the President cannot exercise out OF the United
States authority which he cannot exercise with
in their limits. But he cannot levy contributions
in the United Estates; therefore he cannot levy
contributonsl in Mexico, which Is absurd; Tor
the laws of war give a conqueror The
right to levy on the people OF the coun-
try with which he is at war, contributions
for the support of his soldiers. But Mr.. Webster
" Not the President, but the people Of the
United States" Most true-just much as
Great Britain was the conqueror In those battles
Won by her arms III the Pennsular wal, although
actual conaueror Well, who ever doubted his
right to levy contributions during that war,
without the sanction of an act of Parliament
1t has never been doubted Who has ever called
in question General Scott's right to levy contri-
tons in Mexico, on his own responsibility, as he
did, having even instituted, for that purpose, at
Vera Cruz, a tariff of dutes on imports 1t
cannot be- doubted Will it then be cOntenaed
that, in the General-in- Chief of the army is
vested power over the operations OF that army,
not possessed by Its Commander ln-Chief? Can
Gener ii Scott, who subject to the orders of the
President, as his commander, do that which the
President cannot do :? Certainly not.
But it is said this is not a contribution. 1t ID
tax imposed on the people of Mexico, without
authority of law, and against the spirit of the
law of nations, because the laws of conquered
country can only be changed by the legislative
action of the proper authorities of the ma
lion conquerlng But this tax is not law. 1t
merely military order. designed and ope-
rating for specific purpose. and wanting
that Catholic character stamped upon all laws
Intended for general observance, SO that the
President has made no unconstitutional law in
Mexico, forhe has made no law-has merely is
sued military order; he has done nothing but
what was lawful for his subordinate, aud was
therefore lawful for HIM to do-and IT is absurd
to say that the President cannot exercise, out OF
the United States, power that he cannot exercise
within their limits, for he can lew contributions
in Mexico, and he cannot in the Uated States.
Mr.. Sewer, IN consequence OF severe illness,
will not be able to set out on his way to Mexico
before Sunday morning. Doubts prevail as to
the success OF his mission, and many Senators
voted for the treaty in the positive expectation
that it will never be ratified by the Mexican GO
vernment.
MIR. Badger, Of North Carolina yesterday
made speech on the mission to Rome, some
what similar in spirit, though not quite so In
decent as Mr. Levin 9 speech IN the House. II
is to be regretted3 that such unclean spirit
should be suffered to enter the Senate.