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-