Mr. RAYMOND. No, sir. I prefer that no new champion should take part in this debate. I am likely to have all I can do to take care of those already involved. Now, sir, let me recur to the analogy presented by a case of conquest. Suppose that France or england should conquer one of the States of this lnion in time of war, and should hold that State for a time; would not that be such a temporary suspension of obedience to the constitution and laws of the U.S. as would not affect the existence of the State, either in the sense of public law or in the contemplation of the constitution of the U.S.? Why, sir, I point gentlemen to a case which may have a bearing on this question, and which I believe has already been cited, 586 January 29, though not upon this floor. During our war of 1812, the British took possession of 1/3rd of the territory of the State of Maine, including the town and port of Castine, and held it for ayearheld it so completel, so absolutely, that the peeple within those limits were held by the SCOTUS to have been absolved for the time from their allegiance to the Government of the U.S. But was that State or any part of it extinguished or Congress called on to restore it to the Union when that usurpation had been withdrawn? No, sir. The State re sumed its functions. The action of Congress was not invoked at all. The State went on as a State, and as a State of the Union, just as though the usurpation had never exis; and it was left for the judicial tribunals of the country to decide how far the relations of the individuals in that district to the U.S. were changed or atfected by the temporary suppression of their habitual obedience to the constitution and laws of the U.S. Sir, I have supposed a case of usurpation by a foreign Power. Let me now suppose a case of usurpation by internal commotionby the action of interna causes. For Madison, in the Federalist, says that the provisions of the constitution in regard to the guarantee of a RFG, apply to usuations of an oligarcgy within a State, as wel as to usurpations of another sort. Now. sir, suppose that a party or amilita leaderif it were possible that any military eader in this land could contemplate such a thing suppose that any par or any force should usurp the government of Massachusetts or of NewYork, and the U.S. should fail to redeem its pledge to guaranty to that State a RFG and to expel the usurpin power. If it should fail permancntly, then the State would be taken bytorce ofarms out of the Union; but suppose that it should fail to do so for a year, or for 2 years, or for 3 years, still continuing the endeavor and the strife, would that failure destro the existence of the State as a State of the Uynion? Certainly not. The very supposition affords its own answer. If the usurping power should hold permanent possession, then I concede that the State would cease to be a State of the Union, but not otherwise. Now, I maintain that this is precisely what did happen in the rebel States. During the winter of 186061, a conspiracy against the Government of the U.S. existed here in this city, in this House, on this floor, aided by agents and conspirators in other sections of the country. They deliberately plotted the usurpation of the governments of the southern States, and a usurpation of the functions of the Federal Government within those States. They did all that within the knowledge and under the observation of our Government, which knew its plesand whatitwas preposing to do. It was the duty of our Government at that time to take due precautions against such usurpation. The distinguished chiefthen at the head of the Army of the U.S. (General Scott) recommended to the POTUS that tree s should be stationed at certain points within the proposed scene of operations, or the purpose of preventing the success of such attempted usurpation. hat clearly was the duty of the Government, but the Government failed to perform its duty. The POTUS had a theo which prevented him from interfering; and by the Congress of that day refused to give him any power to interfere if he had been so disposed. PIt was thus to a great extent the fault of the Government of the U.S. that this usurpation, which was concocted here, was carried into partial and temporary execution there. Who does not believe that, if we. had had areasonable force in the State of NCarolina, that State would never have fallen into the hands of the traitors who for a time usurped its government“? The same thing may be said of almost every onthein State. We all know if the U.S. had performed to the letter its solemn promise to guaranty to every State a RFG, we should have prevented the rebellion or greatly curtailed its dimensions. But we did not perform that duty. We allowed the cons iiracy to ripen and gather strength. The rebels took possession of the southern States; and we were compelled, having failed to prevent it, to raise forces for their expulsion. Vhat was the object of all our ar ray of force except to expel the usuers who had taken possession of every one of tesouthern States? What else but that were weting to do from the beginning to the end oiythe struggle? Now, sir, if an attempted usurpation does not necessarily ofitselftake a State out of the Union unless it proves a success, it makes no difference at all that these usuers are able by their force, by their control of the States within their power, to briiilg a majority of the people over to their side. hroug our failure to protect them, the people of those States were brought under the power of the usurpers and compelled to obey their authority and aid their cause. they were in the same condition that the people o Mexico are today under Maxi milian. They had no choice in the matter. If they refused to acquiesce, their property was confiscated and they were arraigned and compelled by force of the prevailing law to join the usurping power. We waged war for 4 years to expel these usurpers and deliver the people from their control. suppose we had accomplished this at the end of 6 months, would anyone have then contended, or would anyone now contend, that anyone of these States was out of the Union? Suppose we had effected this result at the end of one or of 2 years, should we have regarded them as thus and then out of the Union? I would like the Gentfrom Ohio, or anyone else, at the propertime, to point out to me the precise point of time when a State gets out of the Union by the usurpation of its powers, other than the period of its final and full success. The Gentfrom Ohio attributed to me the idea, orhe assumed by his argument without saying in words that I had propounded it, that, in asmuch as these States were not at any time out of the Union, theywere entitled whilerebelStates to all the rights of constitutional States, through out the war; and he drew a strikin picture of the terrible condition in which we should have been placed ifwe had allowed rebel Representatives from those rebel States to take seats upon this floor during the war. I should feel some little personal humiliation if I believed that the gentleman thought so meanlyof my capacityas to suppose for one moment I could have contemplate such a thing. I do hold the theo, with certain limitations not pertinent to this discussion, that once a State always a State, and at all times a State; but to be entitled to representation or power here it must be a constitutional State, owing allegiance to the constitution and yielding obedience to the laws of the U.S. In every one of those States, if there had been a constitutional government, that government would have been entitled to recognition and representation here. Those States which had such governments were so recognized and so represented here all through the war; and you ha here upon this floor, admitted by your own votes, by the votes of many who sit here now, delegates from the States of the South, and States that were in rebellion. There were delegates from Louisiana, Arkansas, from Virginia and from both Tennessee and Kentucky at the very timethe rebels held armed possession of the capitals of both those States. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [ML BROOMALL] also attributed to me the same thing, and he made himself facetious over it, as he had the capacity and the right to do if he saw or fancie anything facetious in it and not content with being facetious he became sar castic and severe and he reached the climax of sarcasm and severity when he referred to the coincidence between my opinions on this point and those of the Democratic Gentfrom NewJersey, [Mr. Rosana] ell, sir, I, have learned long ago that it is much better to be right with a political opponent than wrong with a professed political friend. Party names are of little consequence, especially now when they mean so little and conceal so much and much as it may shock the gentleman, I do not hesitate to say that I would far rather be right with the Gentfrom NewJersey, [Mr. 1100335] democrat as he is, than to be wrong even in such distinguished company as the Gentfrom Pennsylvaniahimself [Mr. Bnooil ALLL Union man as he pretends to be. the gentleman, moreover, seems to have forgotten what also escaped the attention of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SBELLABARGER] that before any man can taken seat on this floor, or assume any office under the Federal Government, he must take an oath to support the constitution of the U.S., and must take it truly and live up to it, or bear the pains and penalties of perjury. Does he suppose for one moment that the rebel powers in those States would have sent men here who would take that oath? They themselves did not take it. They discarded it, they rejected it and if rebel Representatives, reprelenting rebel States, had come here they would be liable to arrest, trial, and punishment for treason. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Baooxsu. intimated that I had been lately converted tot e doctrine of the other side on this subject, and was pleased to express a real or affect surprise thereat. Even if this had been so, I should see no reason to regret it. I trust I shall never be ashamed to change my opinions on any subject, if I can get nearer the truth thereb. I have no right to assume or expect that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania should be so far amiliar with my political opinions, or the history of my public action, as to know the date of anything connected with either. But then he should not as sume to know, on this subject or any other, more than he does know; and to prevent a reetition of his mistake on this point, if he will a low me to send him a speech made by me in Wilming ton, Delaware, in the fall of 1863, more than 2 years ago and during the war, he will find that I held exactly the same ground then that I hold now upon this precise subject, and that I stated it in very nearly the same terms. Now, sir, I come to another point in the remarks of the Gentfrom o io, [Mr. Sam. LAMRGEIL] [took the liberty of saying that if these States had gone out of the Union they must have gone at some particular time and in conse nence of some specific act; and I asked for a efinite statement of the specific time at which, and the specific act by which, this result had been brought about. The gentleman treated me and the House to a highly rhetorical He said that he would, mpg. by way of answering e Gentfrom NewYork as to the specific time, tell him that it was when the courts were silent; it was when they carried on war against the Government; when they became enemies of the Government; when they waged war through long, dreary years; obliterated from their State constitutions every vesti of recognition of our Government; discarde all official oaths, and took in their places oaths to so port the government of our enemy; it was when they disre garded all the laws of war, “when they carved the bones of your martyrs into ornaments, and drank from goblets made of their skulls.” Well, sir, that is very rhetorical, and there is a great deal more of it. It is very fervid, ver touching, and very effective. But, sir, he will excuse me for sayin that it is not an an swer to my question. It is simply and solely an evasion ofit; and he will excuse me for "ng his attention to it again. I take it, that, being a lawyer, he knows very well that the relation of the State to the Federal Government at any time is a question of law, of constitutional law. He will concede that under the law of the comstitution a State, at any particular time, either is or is not a member oftie Union. It is very easy to tell when States became members of this Union, and by what specific act. we all know, for example, that the constitution was adopted on the 17thof september, 1787, and that 1866., 487 it went into effect on the 4th of March, 1789. At that time neither NCarolina nor RhdIsland had ratified the constitution. They were alien States, decided to be such by the SCOTUS; so that goo s that were imported from those States into the U.S. were taxed by our laws as goods imported from other foreign countries. They were foreign States for more essentially and truly than anyone can claim any of the rebel States to have been or to be and yet on the 21st of November, 1789, NCarolina ratified the constitution, and thus became, on that day and by that act, a member of the Union; and RhdIsland, on the 29th of May, 1790, more than a year after the constitution had been adopted by enough States to give it validity, and after the Union was thus ormed, became also a member of that Union at that specific time and by that specific act. It is thus very easy to say precisely when and precisely how any State became a member of the Union. Now, I take it to be equally true that if a State ceases to be a member of the Union she must so cease at some specific time and by some specific act. On any certain day, say the 4th of July, 1861, SCarolina. either was or was not a member of the Union and so of any other day. It is asserted that she is not a member now; and Iask for the specific time when she thus ceased to be a member of the Union. She adopted her ordinance of secession on the 17th of ovember, 1860. Was she a member on the day before, and had she ceased to be a member on the day after, thatact? This is the question I asked; but I got no answer. If she did thus cease, then it was the ordinance of secession that terminated her membership. But I did not understand the Gentfrom Ohio to maintain that theory in distinct terms, and I presume he does not hold it.