Mr. DELANO. If the gentleman will be atient I shall answer this question fully, it being one of the questions I propose to examine during my remarks. That I may not seem to evade it, however, I will say here, while pass i that in their present condition I do not believe they are so destitute of the powers of government as to authorize the U.S. to “exercise local powers of the lost State governments, ” as my colleague eXpresses it. This theory of dead Stiles was rested by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania upon the proposition that during the war we granted to the States in rebellion belligerent rights; that we thereby acknowledged tiem to be foreign terrritory and a foreign Power, whereby we subjected them to the laws of conquest; that, having conquered them, they are now held as provinces, subjeetto our will and pleasure. No respectable author upon the law of nations maintains the doctrine that the acknowledgment of belligerent rights during a civilWar converts the insurgents into a foreign nation. Vattel says, page 424: " When n.party is formedin a Statewho no louxer obey the sovereign, and are possessed of sufficient strengthto oiaposehim; or whc nin a republic the nation is divi edinto tw ooppositpfactions, and both sidestake“u arms.this iscal ed civilWar.” he sovereign indeed, never fails to be stow the appellation of rebelson all such of his subjectsasopenly resisthim: but whcn tholatter have acquired sufficient strengthto give him effectualopopsiliou and obli e him to carry on the wnraecordinp to the establishe rules, he must necessarily submit to the useof the termcivilWar." On page 425 he further observes: “ This being then so.it is very evidentthat the commonlawsof war, those maxiinsof humanity, moderation and honor already detailed in this work. ought to heobservedby both partaesin every and war. Following this argument, the SCOTUS, in the prize cases, says: "The laws of war, as established among nations. have their foundation in reason, and all tendto miti gatethe crueltiesand misery producedby thescourge of war; hence the partiesto ii civilWar usuall concedeto eachother belligerent rights: they exc ange prisoners and adopt other courtosiesand rules common to public or national wars." Further authorities are needless to show that granting belligerent rights to the insurgents did not convertthern into a foreign nation, nor their territory into foreign States. The insurrection was gigantic, requiring great numbers and large means to subdue it. Its duration and vicissi tudes duwig its progress required flags of truce, exchange of prisoners, an “other courtesies and rules common to national wars.” To this extent the rebels were treated as a belligerent Power, and to this extent only. They were thus treated because humanity and the law of nations demanded it, in mitigation of the cruelties and evils produced by the scourge of war. Our extensive coast bordering the States in insurrection would have furnished the insurgents a foreign intercourse so valuable in sustaining the rebellion had it not been subjected to a blockade as to render such a measure for the time bein a necessity. Is it legitimate, then, to conclu e that these necessary measures dic Stated by humanity, and resorted to in obedience to the laws of nations in order to mitigate the cruclties of the insurrection and shorten its duration, converted the insurgent territory into a foreign nation? Clearly not. This process of reasoning has been answered by the following inquiry, if correct, what becomes of the right and power of the Government to punish treason? For traitors are transformed into foreign foes, and the treason ofinsurgents is converted into legitimate war of an alien enemy by this rapid logic of belligerent rights. Seein the gentleman thus hard pressed, my esteeme colleague, [Mr. Siiiiiinnosii,] imitating Achilles when the Greeks were in distress, comes into the conflict, if not with new armor, at least with new arguments, and suggests that the Supreme Court has decided that “it is a proposition never doubted that the belligerent party who claims to be sovereign may exercise both belligerent and sovereign rights, ” and he proceeds to assert as conclusions from the de cision of the Supreme Court, 1st, that the rebel States acted as States in organizing the rebellion; 2nd ly, that all their citizens were thereby made enemies; 3rd ly, that though enemicsthey did not become foreign States, so that when we take them back we must pay their debts; 4th ly, that the U.S. may exercise over these people both belligerent and sovereign rights. before referring to what my colleague said on this int, I on I the attention of the House to the ollowing additional remarks of the court in the prize cases, from which he has quoted: “All persons residin within this territory are to be treatedasencmics, t oughnot foreigners. “But in defining the meaning of the term “ene mics property.we will be led into error if we refer to Fictn or Lord Coke Itv is a technical phrase.pe culinr to prize courts and de ends upon principles of public policy as distinguished from the common llW." Prue 01000.6“. Thus it will appear, by the authorities introduced by my colleague in order to relieve the Gentfrom Pennsylvania from the dif ficulty growing out of his assertion that the in surgent district had become a foreign nation, that the revolting States did not convert their people into foreign enemies, in the common law definition of the term, and hence by their overthrow we do not inherit their debts. My proposition is therefore established that the granting of belligerent rights as an act of hu inanity did not place the parties at war in the same relations as nations foreign to each other. Thus are torn up, root and branch, the prem ises and the conclusions of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania and thus also is established the power of the U.S. to grant bel ligerent rights and maintain sovereign auth0rity, where y she was enabled to crush the insurrection, to save the Union, to guaranty republican governments in the insurgent States, and prevent those States from becoming foreign territoi? with alien enemies as inhabitants. The earful consequences resulting from this theory that the States are dead must not be overlooked. Several months ago I heard the key note of this policy coming from the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, in a speech delivered in Lancaster county. It was then proposed, according to my recollection, to coniscate the property of the late confederate States, and dispose of it, in part for the payment of the public debt, in part for the settlement of the emancipated blacks, and in part to increase the pensions of those who suffered in the late war. I was shocked at this scheme of universal confiscation, and felt as if America would lose her reputation before the nations of the earth if we should adopt it. It rests on the theory of“dcad States and conquered provinces.” I have a profound respect for the ability and the patriotism of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, and I will not say that it is his purpose to push his theory to all the terrible consequences which appear to me to be its natural and inevitable fruits. Should it be enrried to this terrible extent, I can imagine nothing which this Congress has the power to do that would be fraught with so much danger to the country or be likely to bring so much reproach upon our good name. Why, sir, the Duke of Alva executed the de crees of a bigoted and brutal master while rulin in the Netherlands, and thus carried misery and suffering among an oppressed and downtrodden people. But this gigantic scheme of plunder, if carried out to its ul extent, as I understand it, would far outstrip the desolation and ravage caused by the cruelties which I have referred to, and would make the ghost of the noble Duke blush at his own timidity and confess that he was not a plunderer fit to provide for the re construction of the rebel States of America! Crossing the English Channel and contemplating Cromwells famous settlement of Ireland, you behold an extensive scale of plunder and devastation which shocks the sense of justice and fires with indignation the bosom ofevery honest and philanthropic man; and yet, Mr. Speaker, all that fearfu ravage fades into insig nificance before the scheme proposed for our adoption in these States lately in rebellion. You say they are dead! and already, I fear, you have excited the appetite of that class of creation who desire to feed on their remains. They hear the watchword and swell the chorus, “dead States and conquered provinces.” There are birds of prey which wing their way through the blue sky seeking the remains of something dead. There are quadru eds who delight to feast their appetites on the carcasses of the dead, and if you solemnly declare the annihilation of those States, rendering it necessary to govern them by your own action, the new patronage thereby created, the innumerable appointments to governorships, judgeships, and other profitable places for the gratification of ambition and avarice, will, I fear, fill the land with political cormorants eager to satisfy their appetites on the remains of dead States. [can not therefore sanction this policy. If I stand solitary and alone, I will never, no never, sanction it. I will.not attempt to govern these States on the ground that they have lost “their local powers.