The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1849-01-09

IL WIS eNlucHt no puSltlehS Couiu NC uVue-
some Of the members wishing to adjourn in respect
to the 9th of January. Accordingly,
At twenty minutes TO two o'clock, the Committee
rose and the House adjourned
From the Washington Globe.l
LEvYING MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS
MIR. vINTON's SPEECH.
January An, ls49l
Mr.. Vinton said he'regarded this as q very impor-
tan message, asserting principles that were totally
unwarranled in the Constitution or In the previous
should 90 out 10 the public without some remark
here that should 60 along with II. As he understood
the message from hearing il read at the Clerks table,
it proceeded upon two assumptions: upon the as
sumption that in state of warthe military comman-
der had right TO levy military contributions (Which
he presumed, no one dispnted); and In the next
place, that the conqueror oil portion Of the enemy -
country had the right 10 prescribe such laws and
regulations there as he pleased.
| Now as TO the first Of these propositions. that we
had right In an enemy's country TO levy military
contributions, no one had ever disputed #; but the
question was, Waat 10 military contribution? Ifhe
understood it Alright, military contribution was
substitute under the ameloraion which the laws OF
war had undergone In modern times, for the right Of
plumber The laws of war originally gave 10 the mas
lion al war the right of plnndering their enemy
The military contributions were substitute for that
right, by which, by making exactions In money up
on the people OF the enemy, or exactons In some
other form, the enemy, was enabled 10 purchase an
exemption from plumber. Upon those Then, and
those only upon whom, under the ancient nsages of
war you had the right Of plumber had you The right
10 levy military contributions according to The mo-
dern suges Of war-the right 10 levy military con-
lbutons being substitute for the right Of plnndsr
| Whom, then, had nation al war the right TO
plnnderq lis enemies; not lis own people, or noll-
trails The right Of Ilunder was restricted TO The
tie right Of levying military contributions, or d
plumber the President claimed that we had the right
TO levy duties-npon whoma Upon our enemy?--
No; upon American commerce; upon the commerce
OF neutrals He asked had the President of the
United States any right 10 plumber or 10 levy contri
buttons upon American citizens or upon American
properlyf II is 100 plain TO admit Of argument for
a moment, that neither the Executive nor any other
authority IN this country had the right 10 plumber or
to levy contributions upon American citizens up
| on American property.
| Mr.. Stanton interposed and asked u the gentle
| man from Ohio would permit him to ask qnes.
tionq
| Mr.. vinton Certainly
Mr.. Stanton. would like 10 know whether the
Government OF the u s.. upon taking possession Of
the por of Vera Cruz or any other Mexican mort
had not the right, nnderthe laws of war, TO collect
dulles us they were levied by The laws Of Mexico at
that port!
about. By and by | will speak about the right OF the
Government-the sovereign, the conqueror.
M. C. J. 1ngersoll (Mr. V. further yielding at his
requesD remarked, that he did mean to say any
thlng on inns SUBJECT NJ present, more IMAM TO init
mate that he did subscribe all tho argument of
| The honorable gentleman from Ohio. the begged
leave TO call the attention of the gentleman to that
clause Of the Constitution OF the United States upon
which his (Mr. l.'s) doubt had always rested and
which had been passed upon in the former war by
the Supreme Court OF the United States-that was
TO say, TO the eighth section first article, which en-
marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning
| captures on land and water"
| Now, he (Mr. ~ had no doubt at all of the right
to seize, bat the question arose rs TO the right to
| dislurse afterwards.
| Mr.. Vinton Continuing said he had no doubt at
all about what Congress might do; he was speaking
| Of what the Executive had right to do. He said
that the Executive US the officer instructed by the
Constitution with the command ofthe United Stntes
(or II was upon that basis that the President had
placed all his urgumen had the right to levy mill.
tary contributions upon the property Of the enemy;
and he repeated being the assumption, ques-
ton arose upon whom maythese military
be levied? He thought gentlemen might In vain
search the laws ofnaIions to find any authority for
military commander to levy military contributions
upon any but upon the enemyi from him and from
him alone might he enforce them. That was the
mode by which to distress the enemy. But twas no
part OF tho law Of nations, of the practice of M
tons, in carrying on war; that you might distress
your own people, that you might seize the property
Of your own people, and call that military contr
button.
That was precisely what had been done in this
case-done, il was true under the forms Of law en-
uCCQ on tIc f~FcStueH 81 Mc cHfcu IStHCS. w men
American ships had gone into the port Of Vera Cruz
with merchandise when the ships Of neutrnls had
gone there they had been made TO pay contributions
| they had been made to pay that which you could
upon part Of the property OF our own people, and
upon property Of nentials, upon the ground that il
was military contribution, and in SO doing he had
treated them as enemies. 1t appeared TO him, that
If there ever had been departure from the law of
nations If there had been us,rpation II isplan
as the MONDAY sun, that this was such case.
But II II were even granted that these contribu-
tons were justified by the law OF nations, the great
question still nrose, Who may levy these contribn
tionsl The President Of the United States said the
conqueror might levy them; that he had full power
and authority in the country that he had occupied
BY hostile arms That might be granted Grant that
Il was so; and yet the question which then arose here
under our Government was not that which arose in
monarchial Governments, where oil the powers OF
the Government vested In the same hands. The
sovereignty In this country was divided, and If the
right levy contributions were conceded, rather
il the right TO make these commercial regulations
were conceded still the inquiry arose as 10 the nature
Of the thing TO be done Inc Executive Of the U
ted States, would have the undonbted right In the
enerny's country TO do those things which pcrtained
TO the duties OF commnnder.in-chief; but when he
came TO make code Of laws that should regulate
commercial intercourse not only between our own
citizens but between neutraia and foreign nations
that, matter Of course, was an act OF usurpation
and totally unauthorized under our form of govern.
ment. II WIS essentially legislative power. A duty
levied upon commerce was tax upon commerce;
and the power Of leyyng taxes was vested by the
Constitution In The Congress OF the United States
and not In the Executive department Of the Gov.
eminent. G
And, besides, II was perfectly apparent---io ono
could mistake itthat II the President of the United
States, as the military commander OF the country,
whenever the American Army put Its foot upon for
egn territory could do any thing and every thing he
pleased, lhe alone having the power TO negotiate
treaty Of peace; the country having no power 10
make treaty Of peace, except at his Willy II follow
ed, as necessary CONSEQUENCE, that he was des-