Mr. RAYMOND. I thank the gentleman for his permission for me to answer “that.” If I understand him nowand I am surprised that I have so much difficulty in understanding him, for he is very clear in his statements as far as language goes, if not in his ideasI understand Trim to say that inasmuch as those States formerly in rebellion ceased. under international law, to be States at all, the cannot, be or become States in this Union with rout the direct consent of Congress under the Constitution of the U.S. That I believe to be a correct statement of the matter, just as he has made it now. Now, sir, I take issue with the gentleman on the question of fact. Those States did not cease to be Slates in the sense of international law. There never was a time when they had not government and law and obedience to law within their own borders. It does not require obe dience to any particular form of law to constitute a State in the sense of public law. The government may be a monare y today, a republic tomorrow, a military deotism the day after; but if there is law there trhe State continues to be a State. There was law and plenty of it a great deal too much of it such as it wasin the Southern States during the whole rebellion. Why, sir, does the gentleman suppose that there was ever an hour when England, Trance, orany other count in the world would not have recognized each one of those rebel States as a State in the sense of public law, if they had been at liberty to do so under the explicit and peremptoaye nohibitions of the GOvernment of the U.S., and if they could have done so without rupturinginstantly their friendly relations with that Government? No, air, they never ceased to be States in the meaning of public law. The analogy which I drew in the case of France is perfect and complete, except that the case supposed is much stronger than that of these southern States. They were States in the sense of public international law. they were States within the contemplation of the constitution of the U.S., because the habitual obedience which was due to the Governmpnt of the U.S. was only suspended, not abro gated or destroyed. if they liud succeeded in refusing that obedience permanently and forever, then they would have ceased to be States, not otherwise.