addition to the authorities previously cited the following federal court decisions support the same conclusion. In United States v. Andrew Castillero (1862) 67 U. S. (2 Black) 2, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the conception of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief previously defined by Chief Justice Taney in Fleming v. Page 9 Howard 614 (Page 3 of previous Memorandum). At page 357 the Court said: "The power of the President in the conduct of the war was that of a commander-in-chief of the army and navy. He had authority to direct and control military operations. As part of the treatymaking power, he could determine when and on what conditions a treaty of peace should be made. But he had no power to impress upon the war a purpose different from that with which it was commenced, and which, as Mr. Chief Justice Taney declares, Congress could not constitutionally entertain. 'The law declaring war,' observes the same great authority in the case above cited 'does not imply the authority to the President to enlarge the limits of the United States by subjugating the enemy's country. The United States, it is true, may extend its boundaries by treaty or compact, and may demand the cessation of territory as the condition of peace, to indemnify its citizens for the injuries they suffered, or to reimburse the Government for the expenses of the war. 'But this can be done only by the treatymaking power, or the legislative authority, and it is not a part of the authority conferred upon the President by the declaration of war. His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorised to direct the military and naval forces placed by law at his command, and to then in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subjugate it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the -2- |