The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-08-04

"Caudius Lyslus, the popular tribune Though il were
should be examined by scouIgng" And when they had
bound Paul, ready to execute the trbunes unjust
mand, the blessed apostle 60 avoid unlawful and
emperor, and said to the centurion standing by him sis
it lawful for you to scourge that is a Roman
and uDcondemned' When the centurion heard that, he
and told the chief captain saying Take heed what
thou doest for this man is Roman. Then the chief
captain and said TO him, Tell me, art thou Roman
He said, yea. And the chief captain answered, With
great obtained this freedom" But Paul (meaning
to assert his birthrigh Roman czen) said he was
Stree born Thereupon. the tribune becoming alarmed
he was discharged. $50 hereby it was manifest that
Paul was Jew and though born at Tarsls in Cilicia in
Asia Mnor--then under the obedience OF the Roman En-
peror--he was by birth citizen of Rome in Italy, IN
Europe that is, capable of and nhertabe 10, all the priv
commented and relied upon in Calvn's case, and fully
illustrates the principle of that great case The principle
is very correct, and is universally acknowledged
1 that to the popular mind, it is matter OF asonish-
of citizen OF Louisiana, bam since the acquisition
of that country, TO be citizen OF the unted States.
our government, that not well-informed man in Amer
ica would dispute IT, Yet self evident it is, how
applicable TO the question OF the power Of inc Presl-
dent Of the United States, in conquered country, in
have been to the celebrated bridge case tired by Sancho
Panza while governor Of the island Of Baratais
great he case of csmube and Hail. as decided By Lord
Mansfield" | have not examined this case, except the
gentemans report of it and from that it appears that it
was question to the power Of the British King in a
conquered country, after captulaon ans after treaty
| of peace. The gentleman says
al conceded that if not contrary te the of the
equalization the treaty of peace the King had the
conquered by British and thus make it dom nion Of
his Kingdom This royal prerogatYe right prescribe
soure right but right limited to such changes of
not contrary to the fundamental principles of the
British Lord Mansfield however, recognised
the principles, WHICH afterwards laid down by
ilurous ust, Chief Justice Marshall in the Of
Capte in 1T Peters that the conqueng nation, when its
conquest was confirmed and completed might change the
laws of the conquered country"
Here he shows that the King had the power as pre-
rogative OF his crown, to alter the laws of conquered
country if not contrary to treaty capltuaton, and not
in violation Of the British constitution These principles
not denied. The question il. not what may be done
conquered country after treaty OF peace but what may
be done while the continues In foreign war; does
the constitution restrain the Presdent may he do any
thing against the enemy allowed by the voluntary laws
lishmen of governments during the war, the
quered territory, Tor the security Of the conquest and pro-
lection of the conquered inhabitants who submit to the
con4ueror' This the President has done; and, as we
maintain, he has doing discharged the duties of the
high station which he has so honorably filled:
The democratic party is emphatlcay the Union party
purity, and contend for strict construction OF hatsacred
instrument; they cling TO il and its compromises the
last best safeguard of the liberties of happy country
Yet regard this constitution securing the rights OF
our citizens, and not those OF enemies This
stuton provides for the declaration OF war; the making
of treaties and the appointment OF ambassadors; yet 1t
does not provide all rules necessary relation to these
but leaves them to the control OF the laws OF nations
| We will not here inquire what Congress may may
not do to limit the power of the Presl dent as 'com-
mander in chief of the army" inasmuch laws
have been passed upon the subject any proposed
Does the constitution limit the President general, in
his power against foreign enemy' Who for moment
can suppose that the trainers OF that instrument IN
tended TO restrain generals our army from doing
anything in the prosecution OF legal war against the
enemies OF the country Such position IS absurd
There a rivalry among all nationsrepublican, arsto
cratica and monarchicalto give every power and APP
pance to their armies in the field to enable them to sub
due their enemies, consistent with the law OF nations
This power to govern the conquered inhabitants who
submit, not only permitted but required by this law,
and by the enlightened principles of justice and hui
mainly You meet your enemy IN battles you defeat and
dispense his army If you stop here, the country not
yet conquered the civil government goes the egis
lature laws the judges dispense justice and the
revenue officers collect the customs and by the doctrine
of the gentleman, your generals cannot interfere with
private property, levy contributions upon the inhab
ants or interfere with their civil government If none
of these things done, the nation is not and will
be conquered your grievances be they ever 50 great
never will be redressed. To conquer q country, you
must displace the neutrality-suspicious. the govern
ment and, when this is DONE the sovereignty OF your
short of this will give you the full conquest of the
try This is all done against enemy, and by force,
and is legitimate exercise OF the war-powe An &C
QUESTION of this sort is not permanent il is subject to the
control of the treaty making power Thus we see that
it is necessary conquest, that the government of the
enemy shall be overthrown else it is no conquest And
if this be done, would the humanity of the gentlemen
have no government established; would they have moth
ing but anarchy to prevail among the peaceful nhabit
ants, and have the innocent the weak and the helpless
given the lusts and avarice OF the strong and the
iawless No, sir The honorable Chairman says the
President authorized by the laws of war; to preserve
the public peace there, and keep ORDER And how this
to be DONE but by government You have destroyed the
government of Mexico this country conquering
it. Do the gentlemen say this must be done by the strict
stern rules of military law or shall it be done by the
more mild forms of civil government Does any law OF
the constitution of Congress- or OF nations, prescribe the
form of this government? This cannot be pretended
Do the gentlemen say that should be purely military
and that the courts should be courts martia' These
courts have jurisdiction, except of military offences
they have jurisdiction to dispense justice among ndi
vduals disconnected with the army either in the punish
ment of crime, or in securing their rights they are
therefore, wholly inadequate And further if the gene
raj can govern by the STRICT and often despoc, rules Of
military law he surely the greater includes the less
can effect the end by the mild ana appropriate
means of civil institutions
When | remember that our institutions are peculiar
and in our internal affairs so much unlike those of TIT
nations that have established this law and that we have
had so little do in the prosecution of foreign wars,
the administration has had little aid from the light o
precedent and experience am astonlshed that the abt
ana learned gentlemen have not succeeded in finding i'm
poriant errors in the ement OF this war; but
maintain that, with all their vigilance and asiuteness
they have failed to do this
The gentleman from Kentucky says ''there is tH
by conquest, so long the opposing nation is IN exist
ence struggling against her foe" The Supreme Court o
the United States have made several decisions in re ao
10 this subject will only trouble the House to refer
two of them Great Britain for time at war witt
Denmark, and during that time conquered the island o