Mr. RAYMOND. Well, perhaps it would be more accurate and properi I use the gentlemans own language. He says: “What is before this Congress by far the most momentous constitutional question ever here considered “I Itajstuonndecerocounrtdoennssteiatuntdiounflirni in a simple sentence. Possible to, and the late rebellion did in fact so, overthrow and usurp in the insurrectionary States the loyal –State governments as that durins such usurpation such States and their people ceased to have any of the rights or powersof government as States of this Union: and this lossof the rights and powers of government was such that the U.S. may an ought to assume and exercise local powers of thrilost State governments, and may contro the readmission of such States to their powers of government in this Union, subject to and in accordance with the obligation to guaranty to each State a RFG. “ I accept that as the gentlemans statement of the case. The Gentfrom Connecticut [Mr. DEMING] stated in so many words that the people of these lately rebellious States were now “vanquished enemies, ” to be dealt with politically as such, and that their lives, propert, and political rights were at our absolute an sovereign disosal and he took some credit to himself or bein willing to waive in their behalf something of the strtdzlimmum jus which the rule of subjugation would give us. Now, sir, as I have already indicated, my position is the exact opposite of this. I deny in into the fact of such subjugation. I do not believe that the war has given us any such power. On the contrary, I hold that these States have never ceased to be States, and have never ceased to be States in and States of the Union and they are today States of the Union, and therefore entitled to all the rights conferred upon them as such by the constitution and we have no right and no power to exercise any authority over them which the constitution does not confer upon us, any more than we have over the States of NewEngland or the West. Now, sir, I wish to say in the 1st place that this is sometimes spoken of as a nestion of mere meta physics, or as a verbal ifference, not entitled to any particular consideration in dealing with the practical relations of the subject. If I so regarded it I would not waste time in this House in its discussion. But when I see that on that distinction turns a system of policy to be pursued toward those States in restoring peace and harmony to the Union I cannot so regard it and many of the gentlemen who themselves thus designate it have based upon that distinction, nevertheless, the whole scope of policy which they think should be pursued toward those States. I trust, therefore, that the House will forbear with me if I enter somewhat at length into an examination of the great principle upon which it in proposed that have no did this question should rest. I can do it, rhaps, more clearly and satisfactorily than 0therwise, in the form of reply to objections which have been u eda inst the position I have taken; and, without isrespect to any other gentlemen on this floor, I shall take the speech made b the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SllELLABABGHB in reply to me as embodying the most compact, forcible, and most carefully prepared legal argument that has yet been made. The Gentfrom Ohio took the ground that habitual obedience to law must characterize a community in orderto entitle it to be considered a State.