legal, constitutional, or other authority," the "revenue thus derived," was appropriated to "the support of the army in Mexico," I refer the House to my annual message of the 7th of December, 1847; to my message to the Senate of the 10th of February, 1848, responding to a call of that body, a copy of which is herewith communicated; and to my message to the House of Representatives of the 24th of July, 1848, responding to a call of that House. The. resolution assumes that the Secretary of the Treasury "established a tariff of duties in the ports of the Mexican Republic." The contributions collected in this mode, were not established by the Secretary of the Treasury, but by a military order issued by the President through the War and Navy Departments. For his information the President directed the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and report to him, a scale of duties. That report was made, and the President's military order of the 31st of March, 1847, was based upon it. The documents communicated to Congress with my annual message of December, 1847, show the true character of that order.

The authority under which military contributions were exacted and collected from the enemy and applied to the support of our army, during the war with Mexico, was stated in the several messages referred to. In the first of these messages, I informed Congress, that "on the thirty-first day of March last, I caused an order to be issued to our military and naval commanders to levy and collect a military contribution upon all vessels and merchandise which might enter any of the ports of Mexico in our military occupation, and to apply such contributions towards defraying the expenses of the war. By virtue of the right of conquest and the laws of war, the conqueror, consulting his own safety or convenience, may either exclude foreign commerce altogether from all such ports, or permit it upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Before the principal ports of Mexico were blockaded by our navy, the revenue derived from import duties, under the laws of Mexico, was paid into the Mexican treasury. After these ports had fallen into our military possession, the blockade was raised, and commerce with them permitted upon prescribed terms and conditions. They were opened to the trade of all nations upon the payment of duties more moderate in their amount than those which had been previously levied by Mexico; and the revenue, which was formerly paid into the Mexican treasury, was directed to be collected by our military and naval officers, and applied to the use of our army and navy. Care was taken that the officers, soldiers and sailors of our army and navy, should be exempted from the operations of the order; and as the merchandise imported, upon which the order operated, must be consumed by Mexican citizens, the contributions exacted were, in effect, the seizure of the public revenues of Mexico, and the application of them to our own use. In directing this measure, the object was to compel the enemy to contribute, as far as practicable, towards the expenses of the war."

It was also stated in that message, that "measures have recently

been adopted by which the internal as well as the external revenues of Mexico, in all places in our mintary occupation, will be seized and appropriated to the use of our army and navy. The policy of levying upon the enemy contributions in every form, consistently with the laws of nations, which it may be practicable for our military commanders to adopt, should, in my judgment, be rigidly enforced; and orders to this effect have accordingly been given. By such a policy, at the same time that our own treasury will be relieved from a heavy drain, the Mexican people will be made to feel the burdens of the war, and, consulting their own interests, may be induced the more readily to require their rulers to accede to a just peace."

In the same message, I informed Congress that the amount of the "loan" which would be required for the further prosecution of the war, might be "reduced by whatever amount of expenditures can be saved by military contributions collected in Mexico;" and that "the most rigorous measures for the augmentation of these contributions have been directed, and a very considerable sum is expected from that source." The Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of that year, in making his estimate of the amount of loan which would probably be required, reduced the sum, in consideration of the amount which would probably be derived from these contributions, and Congress authorized the loan upon this reduced estimate.

In the message of the tenth of February, 1818, to the Senate, it was stated that "no principle is better established than that a nation. at war has the right of shifting the burden off itself, and imposing it upon the enemy by exacting military contributions. The mode of making such exactions must be left to the discretion of the conqueror, but it should be exercised in a manner conformable to the rules of civilized warfare. The right to levy these contributions is essential to the successful prosecution of war in an enemy's country, and the practice of nations has been in accordance with this principle. It is as clearly necessary as the right to fight battles, and its exercise is often essential to the subsistence of the army. Entertaining no doubt that the military right to exclude commerce altogether from the ports of the enemy in our military occupation, included the minor rights of admitting it under prescribed conditions, it became an important question, at the date of the order, whether there should be a discrimination between vessels and cargoes belonging to citizens of the United States and vessels and cargoes belonging to neutral nations."

In the message to the House of Representatives of the twentyfourth of July, 1848, it was stated that "it is from the same source of authority that we derive the unquestioned right, after the war has been declared by Congress, to blockade the ports and coasts of the enemy, to capture his towns, cities and provinces, and to Tevy contributions upon him for the support of our army. Of the same character with these is the right to subject to our temporal military government the conquered territories of our enemy. They are all belligerent rights, and their exercise is as essential to the

successful prosecution of a foreign war as the right to fight battles."

By the constitution the power to "declare war" is vested in Congress, and by the same instrument it is provided that "the President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States," and that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

war.

When Congress have exerted their power, by declaring war against a foreign nation, it is the duty of the President to prosecute it. The constitution has prescribed no particular mode in which he shall perform this duty. The manner of conducting the war is not defined by the constitution. The term war, used in that instrument, has a well understood meaning among nations. That meaning is derived from the laws of nations, a code which is recognized by all civilized powers, as being obligatory in a state of The power is derived from the constitution, and the manner" of exercising it is regulated by the laws of nations. When Congress have declared war, they, in effect, make it the duty of the President in prosecuting it, by land and sea, to resort to all the modes, and to exercise all the powers and rights which other nations at war possess. He is invested with the same power in this respect as if he were personally present, commanding our fleets by sea or our armies by land. He may conduct the war by issuing orders for fighting battles, besieging and capturing cities, conquering and holding the provinces of the enemy, or by capturing his vessels and other property on the high seas. But these are not the only modes of prosecuting war which are recognized by the laws of nations, and to which he is authorized to resort. The levy of contributions on the enemy is a right of war well established and universally acknowledged among nations, and one which every belligerent possessing the ability may properly exercise. The most approved writers on public law admit and vindicate this right, as consonant with reason, justice, and humanity.

No principle is better established than that "we have a right to deprive our enemy of his possessions, of everything which may augment his strength and enable him to make war. This every

one endeavors to accomplish in the manner most suitable to him. Whenever we have an opportunity, we seize on the enemy's property, and convert it to our own use; and thus, besides diminishing the enemy's power, we augment our own, and obtain at least a partial indemnification or equivalent, either for what constitutes the subject of the war, or for the expenses and losses incurred in its prosecution; in a word, we do ourselves justice." "Instead of the custom of pillaging the open country and defenceless places," the levy of contributions has been "substituted." "Whoever carries on a just war has a right to make the enemy's country contribute to the support of his army, and towards defraying all the charges of the war. Thus he obtains a part of what is due to him; and the enemy's subjects,.by consenting to pay the sum demanded, have their property secured from pillage, and the country is preserved."

These principles, it is believed, are uncontroverted by any civilized nation in modern times. The public law of nations, by which they are recognized, has been held by our highest judicial tribunal as a code which is applicable to our "situation" in a state of war, and binding on the United States; while in admiralty and maritime cases it is often the governing rule. It is in a just war that a nation has the "right to make the enemy's country contribute to the support of his army." Not doubting that our late war with Mexico was just on the part of the United States, I did not hesitate, when charged by the constitution with its prosecution, to exercise a power common to all other nations, and Congress was duly informed of the mode and extent to which that power had been and would be exercised, at the commencement of their first session, thereafter.

Upon the declaration of war against Mexico by Congress, the United States were entitled to all the rights which any other nation. at war would have possessed. These rights could only be demanded and enforced by the President, whose duty it was, as "commanderin-chief of the army and navy of the United States," to execute the law of Congress which declared the war. In the act declaring war, Congress provided for raising men and money to enable the President "to prosecute it to a speedy and successful termination." Congress prescribed no mode of conducting it, but left the President to prosecute it according to the laws of nations, as his guide. Indeed, it would have been impracticable for Congress to have provided for all the details of a campaign.

The mode of levying contributions must necessarily be left to the discretion of the conqueror, subject to be exercised, however. in conformity with the laws of nations. It may be exercised by requiring a given sum, or a given amount of provisions to be furnished by the authorities of a captured city or province; it may be exercised by imposing an internal tax, or a tax on the enemy's commerce, whereby he may be deprived of his revenues, and these may be appropriated to the use of the conqueror. The latter mode was adopted by the collection of duties in the ports of Mexico, in our military occupation, during the late war with that republic.

So well established is the military right to do this under the laws of nations, that our military and naval officers, commanding our forces on the theatre of war, adopted the same mode of levying contributions from the enemy, before the order of the President, of the 31st of March, 1847, was issued. The general in command of the army at Vera Cruz, upon his own view of his powers and duties, and without specific instructions to that effect, immediately after the capture of that city, adopted this mode. By his order of the twenty-eighth of March, 1847, heretofore communicated to the House of Representatives, he directed a "temporary and moderate tariff of duties to be established." Such a tariff was established, and contributions were collected under it and applied to the uses of our army. At a still earlier period, the same power was exercised by the naval officers in command of our squadron on the Pacific coast.

*

Not doubting the authority to resort to this mode, the order of the thirty-first of March, 1817, was issued, and was, in effect, but a modification of the previous orders of these officers, by making the rates of contribution uniform, and directing their collection in all the ports of the enemy in our military occupation, and under our temporary military government.

*

*

The right to levy contributions upon the enemy, in the form of import and export duties in his ports, was sanctioned by the treaty of peace with Mexico. By that treaty, both governments recognized, and confirmed the exercise of that right. By its provisions, "the custom-houses at all the ports occupied by the forces of the United States," were, upon the exchange of ratifications, to be delivered up to the Mexican authorities, "together with all bonds and evidences of debt for duties on importations and exportations not yet fallen due," and "all duties on imports and on exports collected at such custom-houses, or elsewhere in Mexico, by authority of the United States," before the ratification of the treaty by the Mexican government, were to be retained by the United States; and only the net amount of the duties, collected after this period, was to be "delivered to the Mexican government." By its provisions, also, all merchandise, "imported previously to the restoration of the custom-houses to the Mexican authorities," or "exported from any Mexican port, whilst in the occupation of the forces of the United States," was protected from confiscation and from the payment of any import or export duties to the Mexican government, even although the importation of such merchandise "be prohibited by the Mexican tariff." The treaty also provides, that should the custom-houses be surrendered to the Mexican authorities in less than sixty days from the date of its signature, the rates of duty on merchandise imposed by the United States, were, in that event, to survive the war, until the end of this period; and, in the meantime, Mexican customhouse officers were bound to levy no other duties thereon "than the duties established by the tariff found in force at such custom-houses, at the time of the restoration of the same." The "tariff found in force t such custom-houses," which is recognized and sustained by this stipulation, was that established by the military order of the thirty-first of March, 1847, as a mode of levying and collecting military contributions from the enemy.

The right to blockade the ports and coasts of the enemy in war is no more provided for or prescribed by the constitution than the right to levy and collect contributions from him in the form of duties or otherwise; and yet it has not been questioned that the President had the power, after war had been declared by Congress, to order our navy to blockade the ports and coasts of Mexico. The right in both cases exists under the laws of nations. If the Presi dent cannot order military contributions to be collected without an act of Congress, for the same reason he cannot order a blockade; nor can he direct the enemy's vessels to be captured on the high seas; nor can he order our military and naval officers to invade the enemy's country, conquer, hold, and subject to our military gov