Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot yield now. I cannot yield to have immaterial issues brought in here; but if I had the time I would yield with pleasure for any pertinent question. I want some gentleman here to tell me the difference between a conquest of the rebel States by the war power of the Government and a conquest of Canada supposing we had had a war with GreatBritain. Had we been in war with GreatBritain instead of the southern confederacy, and had we made a conquest of the Canadas, would we have the right under the law of nations to establish military governments there? I answer most assuredly. Would we be compelled to withdraw the military forces as soon as they had surrendered? By no means. We would continue our military forces in the Canadas until peace had been declared and until the new order of things should be adjusted according to the spirit of our institutions and in harmony with our Constitution. Now, sir, let us look into history find see if we cannot get some light on this subject. It is but a few years since we invaded Mexican soil. After many sanguinary contests our armies marched victoriously to the capital of that country. We made a conquest of their whole territory. Now, on the theory of gentlemen here who oppose this bill, the Mexican people should have protested, as the people of the rebel States have protested, against the occupation of their territory by the military forces, on the ground that they had surrendered their arms and were willing to yield to the situation. What are the facts concerning the occupation of Mexico? We held it until the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was agreed upon, and we maintained our military force there until we had secured all the objects of the war. After the ratification of the treaty the troops were withdrawn, but not till then. In regard to the States lately in rebellion there has been no ratification of a treaty of eace. There has been no peace declared. adpeace been declared what would have been the effect? The States in rebellion would have been restored to the Union. The Representatives from those States would have been admitted into Congress on the same terms as Representatives from the loyal States. That would be the highest evidence of the restoration of those States to the Union. The admission of their Representatives to seats here would itself be the most satisfactory evidenee that peace had been restored and the highest evidence of the restoration of those States to all their rights under the Constitution. We have had no declaration of peace, and we have had no peace in fact. We conquered. the rebellion. e now have possession of their territory as conquerors, and when did we cease to have the character of conquerors? When did we lay aside that character? Never. We have suspended active hostilities, but we have never given up our occupation of that country by the military forces. To be sure we have not lately controlled it to any considerable extent by military authority, but we have not given up military occupation of those. socalled States; neither do we intend tountil the rights of the enfranchised and loyal people of such States shall be secured and the peace and safety of the Republic shall be no longer endangered by disloyal rule. Congress, under the Constitution, has power “to make rules and regulations concerning captures on land and water.” Now, sir, dur. ING the progress of the war, under the rules and regulations of the Army as prescribed by acts of Congress, which rules and regulations were changed from time to time, our forces captured property of all descriptions, personal and real, and disposed of the same, putting the proceeds into the Treasury of the U.S. We captured their officers and soldiers and held them as prisoners of war. We cap tured State after State from the confederate government, and at last we captured all its States; so that when the rebel flag went down we had captured as trophies of the war the entire rebel confederacy, thus making a conquest of that government and a conquest of its people and of its territory. The Gentfrom Kentucky who last addressed the House [Mr. Hisel desired some reference to the clause of the Constitution which gives us authority to regulate and control the southern States lately in rebellion. I point him to that clause which declares that “Congress shall have power to make rules and regulations concerning cap tures on land and water.” But some gentlemen urge that this clause in the Constitution applies only to personal property. I, answer that the Constitution makes no distinction as to the character of the property, and the reason able inference is that it includes everything which is the legitimate subject of capture..We capture towns, cities, and States, as well as rsonal property, and under this clause in {. }. the Congress has a right to make rules and regulations concerning such captures and we have the right to dispose of the territory thus captured from the confederacy by sale, if we desire to, or in oother manner. It is absolutely at the disposal of the conqueror. Under the law it belongs to the conqueror, and the conqueror necessarily has the right to dispose of that which belongs to him in any manner he may think best. We propose by this bill to control the subjudgated people in this conquered territory by the military power temporarily until such times as loyal civil government can be established there and maintained without the aid of the military power. But in order to find authority in congress to pass this bill I am not compelled to go so far with the argument based upon this clause of the Constitution as to even inquire whether it authorizes any disposition to be made of the territory captured or wrested from the confederate government. This clause in the Constitution relates to “captures, ” and it cannot be denied but that we have authority to make rules and regulations concerning such captures. This bill only proposes to regulate tohe ca.ptured rebels; it does not interfere with But I am not driven to rest the right of Congress to pass this bill upon this clause alone. I call the attention of the House to another clause of the Constitution. It is this: “The Congress shall have power to disposeof and mtearrkiteoarlyl noereodtfhuel rruplersoapnedrtryebgeulloantigoinnsgrteosp the U.S.’ The late rebel States are to all intents and purposes as much territories of the U.S., subject to the exclusive control of con . as are the Territories of Utah, NewMexico, Montana, or any other Territory be longing to the Government. Congress has not yet vested the people of these socalled States: with authority to establish local governments, but has so far retained the right to exercise all legislative authority for them, and in the exercise of that authority we propose to establish temporarily military governments in these socalled States for the security of life, liberty, and property. This is not, strictly speaking, a measureof reconstruction, but a measure looking simply to the enforcement of order. It seems to me clear, then, that, not only under the laws of war and under the law of nations, but under the express authority of the Constitution itself,possesses. rightful authority to establish military governments, as proposed by the bill under consideration. And here I ask the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] this question: if these late rebel States are States in the Union, are they not of right entitled to a vote upon any resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution?. the gentleman himself holds that the constitutional amendment when rat; ified by 3/4ths of the adhering loyal States will be binding.