The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-06


graphs is involved think, in the following prop
ositions;
LIST. That the contribution was levied, not upon our
enemies, but upon the commerce either OF neuras or OF
our citizens and thus levied in violation of the law
of nations; and
3D. That If this be not so, and the legality of the
rbuon under the law of nations be admitted yet that
the levy was made in the form of tariff upon com
merce that is, in the form of Legislature act operating
in the enemys country, which, under constitution
Congress only is competent to enact
1t is not questioned presume, by Mr. Vinion, that
the port of Vera Cruz legally bockaded by the Pres
dents orders, without any other special authority from
Congress than that contained in the act declaring war
against Mexico The President, then, commander in
chief and chief executive, clearly has the power in time
of war, under the constitution and the laws OF
nations, to estop all commerce, either OF neurals or
of our own citizens, from entering the enemy ports
in our military possession. But the right to order
strict blockade is universally admitted TO imply
the right to order and enforce modified blockade,
which modified blockade, long as it conforms to
the laws of nations may be and is always regulated pre-
scribed, and enforced by the authority which can
put on strict blockade. Now, ii is of the essence of
modified blockade that ii regulates the entrance OF yes
sells into the enemy port, and prescribes the conditions
under which certain cagoes or parts OF cargoes may be
landed and sold there and certain other cargoes or parts
of cargoes excluded The boekadng authority OF every
government in time of has the right to lay down
and enforce. in conformity with the laws OF nations,
these conditions of commercial intercourse at the enemys
captured port All this, take it, is the well settled
law of blockade and the ndisputabe doctrine OF the
Presidents right under that law in tine OF war, provided
it be admitted as we understand it to be, that without
special law of Congress, the President in the conduct OF
the war can order blockade at all
Now in regard to Mr. Vnons objection, that the seiz-
ure for military purposes and by military authority, OF
customs upon the commerce entering the port OF Vera
Cruz was in form Legislative act, and so beyond
the Presidents power we reply, in the first place,
tina, a modified blockade, though fully sanctioned by
the law of nations and by constitution and our
national usage as lawful exercise of military pow
err by the commander in. chief in time of war, is
yet, in its effect upon neutral commerce. legislative
discrimnation-a legislative regulation. Yet this fact
certainly does not make it an Illegal act the part
of the President We reply, in the second place, to this
objection as to the Legislative form of the military contr
button adopted by the President that every military con-
rbution is and must be more or less in that very form
III Is regulated, uetTEiHea p'eSCFtOeu,
formity with certain rules; otherwise, it would be mere
plumber as distinguished from the more humane and
civilized mode of contribution. To make out the Presi-
dents act TO be Illegal therefore, Mr. Vinon must aver
something than that it took Legislative form, He
does aver more. He says that it took the form OF egs-
ative act euying tar upon commerce, thus usurping
prerosative confined TO Congress by the constitution.
In order proceed step by step, in our examination oil
this objection, LET first suppose that the commerce so
taxed by the Presidents order as military contribution,
had been the internal commerce of Mexico, and that
neurals had in it In that the property is
Mexican and we presume that Mr.. Vnton admitting as he
does the Presidents right to levy military contribution
upon Mexican property, will not say that such right IS
defeated because the property happens 10 be process OF
commercial interchange. Still less will he say that the
President would not have the right TO seize the erce
dty upon that interchange which is levied by the Mex-
can government Still less he say that the Presi-
dent NAV not in his discretion, in the absence of legisla
ton by Congress, seize part of that excise duty, and
quito aim the rest And still less, surely he NAM
tain that the President thus having the right to seize the
whole or part of such excise military contribution,
may not prescribe beforehand arhdt part of he will
seize But to do this would be to levy military con-
tribuon in the form OF tar upon commerce. prescribed
by an act just Legislative in its character as was the
tariff laid by military authority on imports at Vera Cruz
Mr. Vintons objection, therefore, to the Legislative
form of the act, would if sound, deprive the President
of the right to seize the internal of Me1-
tco-a right which Mr.. Vinton, if we understand him,
does not deny and his objection, therefore, against the
form of the military contribution, legislative tar up
on commerce, cannot be sustained
! But he argues further-and this is his main point as
given in the first of the two propositions above stated
the military tariff in question is Legislature tar upon the
commerce of NEUTRALs OR OF OUR OWN CITIZENS 1t is
thus military contribution levied not upon enemy prop
ey but our own property, that OF third parties Now
TO this we answer first:
That the military tariff in question was not an injury
but benefit 10 American and neutral 1t per-
mtted that commerce to go on, when the President
might, bellgeTent, have estopped it. More than
this it diminished instead of increasing the burdens
which Mexico put upon by her prohbtive tariff which
we found in force there, and thus placed neutral and
American commerce in better position than it would
have held if the President hadle the port open, and the
Mexican collector undsturbed at his deska better po-
stion that u.s. than such would have had if no
such tary contribution had been levied by the Presi-
dent Thus military tariff, whether legal or illegal,
injured no neutral; and neutral, so far we have
ever heard, has complained of it.
But this is not the man point. We answer, in the
second place. that the tar the revenue seized by us,
not neutral Amercan property The revenues collect
81