fiscation 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 custom-house 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 at such custom-houses," which is recognized
and sustained by this stipulation, was that established by the military
order of the 31st 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 President can not order military
contributions to be collected without an act of Congress, for the same
reason he can not 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 government his cities and provinces; nor can he
give to our military and naval commanders orders to perform many other
acts essential to success in war.

If when the City of Mexico was captured the commander of our forces had
found in the Mexican treasury public money which the enemy had provided
to support his army, can it be doubted that he possessed the right to
seize and appropriate it for the use of our own Army? If the money
captured from the enemy could have been thus lawfully seized and
appropriated, it would have been by virtue of the laws of war,
recognized by all civilized nations; and by the same authority the
sources of revenue and of supply of the enemy may be cut off from him,
whereby he may be weakened and crippled in hi