"The right to thus occupy an enemy's country and temporarily provide for its government has been recognized by previous action of the executive authority, and sanctioned by frequent decisions of this court. The local government being destroyed, the conqueror may set up its own authority, and make rules and regulations for the conduct of temporary government, and to that end may collect taxes and duties to support the military authority and carry on operations incident to the occupation."
Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913
"The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession is one of the incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer. We therefore do not look to the Constitution or political institutions of the conqueror for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession, during its [182 U.S. 222, 231] military occupation, nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws of war, as established by the usage of the world and confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts,- in fine, from the law of nations. . . . The municipal laws of a conquered territory or the laws which regulate private rights, continue in force during military occupation, except so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of the conqueror. . . . He, nevertheless, has all the powers of a de facto government, and can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new ones." Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901
"Look at it practically from another point of view. Certainly, before revenue laws
can be made operative in a district or country it is essential that the situation be taken
into account, for the purpose of establishing ports of entry, collection districts, and
the necessary [182 U. S. 222, 242] machinery to enforce them. Of course, it is patent that
such investigations cannot be made prior to acquisition. But, as the laws immediately
extend, without action of Congress, as the result of acquisition, it must follows that
they extend, although none of the means and instrumentalities for their successful
enforcement can possibly be devised until the acquisition is completed. This must be,
unless it be held that there is power in the government of the United States to enter a
foreign country, examine its situation, and enact legislation for it before it has passed
under the sovereignty of the United States. From the point of view of the United States,
then, it seems to me that the doctrine of the immediate placing of the tariff laws outside
the line of newly acquired territory, however extreme may be the opinion entertained of
the doctrine of immediate incorporation, is inadmissible and in conflict with the
Constitution."
Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901
"The jurisdiction of the conqueror is complete. He may change the form of government and the laws at his pleasure, and may exercise every attribute of sovereignty. The conquered territory becomes a part of the domain of the conqueror, subject to the right of the nation to which it belonged to recapture it if they can. By reason of this right to recapture, the title of the conqueror is not perfect until confirmed by treaty of peace. But this imperfection in his title is, practically speaking, important only in case of alienation made by the conqueror before treaty. If he sells, he sells subject to the right of recapture."
"But although, for purposes of sale, the title of the conqueror is imperfect
before cession, for purposes of government and jurisdiction his title is perfect before
cession. As long as he retains possession he is sovereign; and not the less sovereign
because his sovereignty may not endure for ever. [50 U.S. 603, 608] Grotius (ch. 6, book
3, 4), speaking of the right to things taken in war, says that land is reputed lost which
is so secured by fortifications that without their being forced it cannot be repossessed
by the first owner. And in ch. 8, book 3, treating of empire over the conquered, he shows
that sovereignty may be acquired by conquest."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"1st. That, by conquest and firm military occupation of a portion of an enemy's country, the sovereignty of the nation to which the conquered territory belongs is subverted, and the sovereignty of the conqueror is substituted in its place."
"2d. That although this sovereignty, until cession by treaty, is subject to be
ousted by the enemy, and therefore does not give an indefeasible title for purposes of
alienation, yet while it exists it is supreme, and confers jurisdiction without limit over
the conquered territory, and the right to allegiance in return for protection."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"It cannot be denied that these principles, established by the common consent of
the civilized world, must govern the title to conquests made by the United States. As one
of the family of nations, they are bound by the law of nations, and the nature and effect
of their acquisitions by conquest must be defined and regulated by that law."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"The messages of the President to Congress during the war, and the instructions
from the heads of departments, contain authoritative declarations as to the right of the
United States to acquire foreign territory by conquest, and as to the effect of such
conquest upon the sovereignty of the conquered territory, in accordance with the
principles above stated. Thus, the President, in his message of December, 1846, says:- 'By
the law of nations a conquered territory is subject to be governed by the conqueror during
his military possession, and until there is either a treaty of peace or he shall
voluntarily withdraw from it. The old civil government being necessarily superseded, it is
the right and duty of the conqueror to secure his conquest, and to provide for the
maintenance of civil order and the rights of the inhabitants. This right has been
exercised and this duty performed by our military and naval commanders, by the
establishment of temporary governments in some of the conquered provinces in Mexico,
assimilating them as far as practicable to the free institutions of our own country."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"A war, therefore, declared by Congress, can never be presumed to be waged for the
purpose of conquest or the acquisition of territory; nor does the law declaring the war
imply an 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 conquest or treaty, and [50 U.S. 603, 615] may demand the cession of territory as the
condition of peace, in order to indemnify its citizens for the injuries they have
suffered, or to reimburse the government for the expenses of the war. But this can be done
only by the treaty-making power or the legislative authority, and is not a part of the
power conferred upon the President by the declaration of war. His duty and his power are
purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the
naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner
he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the
hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But
his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our
institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative
power."
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850
"The theory that a country remains foreign with respect to the tariff laws until
Congress has acted by embracing it within the customs union presupposes that a country may
be domestic for one purpose and foreign for another. It may undoubtedly become necessary
for the adequate administration of a domestic territory to pass a special act providing
the proper machinery and officers, as the President would have no authority, except under
the war power, to administer it himself; but no act is necessary to make it domestic
territory if once it has been ceded to the United States. . . . This theory also
presupposes that territory may be held indefinitely by the United States; that it may be
treated in every particular, except for tariff purposes, as domestic territory; that laws
may be enacted and enforced by officers of the United States sent there for that purpose;
that insurrections [183 U.S. 176, 179] may be suppressed, wars carried on, revenues
collected, taxes imposed; in short, that everything may be done which a government can do
within its own boundaries, and yet that the territory may still remain a foreign country.
That this state of things may continue for years, for a century even, but that, until
Congress enacts otherwise, it still remains a foreign country. To hold that this can be
done as matter of law we deem to be pure judicial legislation. We find no warrant for it
in the Constitution or in the powers conferred upon this court. It is true the non action
of Congress may occasion a temporary inconvenience; but it does not follow that courts of
justice are authorized to remedy it by inverting the ordinary meaning of words."
The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176 1901
"Footnotes: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That by the ratification of the treaty of peace
with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine islands
into citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said
islands as an integral part of the territory of the United States; but it is the intention
of the United States to establish on said islands a government suitable to the wants and
conditions of the inhabitants of said island to prepare them for local
self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as will
best promote the interests of the United States and the inhabitants of said islands."
Cong. Rec., 55th Cong. 3d Sess. vol. 32, p. 1847.
The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176 1901
The United States is still a British Colony; Part 1
The United States is still a British Colony; Part 2