Mr. Justice Catron. T has the Senate see that. the judges of the Supreme Court. by a unnnimous order passed in the execution of the statute of 1802, the contingeticy having occurred which rendered it necessary that they should discharge the duty imposed upon them, have thought. themselves bound to consider all of these States as still States of the Union, and have, as among themselves, divided out these States as composing the circuits to which the respective judges are to be allotted. Mr. Preident, it would be fatiguing the senate, however it may be desirable, perhaps, "1 order that the country may be informed, m refer to all the proceedin of the Legislature and the Executive and the Judiciary to show that in the opinion of each Dept these States are considered as existin States, and in the Union as such. All that further propose to do on this occasion is to call the attention of the senateto a passage or 2 in the opinion of the Supreme curt in the prize cases, and to some general remarks as to the authority of the U.S. to bring about the end which the honorable member supposes has been brought about by the hostilities or in consequence of the hostilities. A passage in the opinion of the court in those cases has been over and over again relied upon in this Chamber and elsewhere as the doctrine that whatever may be acmcoaminptaliisnhineg by war in the case of an international war, hasbeen accomplished by means of the hostilities which we have been carrying on in these States, and consequently that whatever rights are incident to a state of war, and may be acquired by either of the belligerents in an internationa war, are incident to and might be acquired by the U.S. in the hostilities which the U.S. has carried on; and fliat as one of those rights is to obtain title by conuest that title may be obtained in our case by the U.S. as well as if the war had been an international one. Now, before I take upn the case, permit me to change the order in whch I propose to consider it, and let me state the propos1tion so that I may very fairly try cone usions with my friendfrom Wisconsin. Supposing him to maintain the doctrine which Iam about to state, he does it, as I think, necessarily, as one of teresults of his view, if he does not do it in terms) we have obtained, says the honorable member, as one of the consequences of the war, some right that we had not before. What is that? A right to legislate for the people and for the territory within the States El; t. have been in insurrection as people of Territories and as Territories. We have 01. that how? By the result of the war. what result of the war? Because of the victory which we have achieved overthe rebellion. We have won it by force of arms; we are the conquerors, they are the conquered. We, there ore, by virtue of the conquest, have a right over the territory of these States which we did not before possess. We have an authority over the citizens Of those States which we did not before possess. Conquered! In the 1st place we are to consider what authority is there in the constitution of the U.S. which gives to the General Governmentif there shall be enough lett of that Government to accomplish itthe right to conquer the States. I have, in a meas sure anticipated the argument. The authority delegated is an authority not to conquer people or territory, but to conquer in the name of the constitution and laws of the U.S., and therebv, by force of such conquest, to be able to hold them “ and declare to the insurgents, This is your constitution and your laws, and you are bound by them as you were before you attempted to resist their authority.” Can anybody doubt that? We went into the conflictto maintain both the constitution and the laws. Whatgaveriseto the conflict? Whatwas the conflict? Are the States and the people of the States in or out of the Union? We have tried that qluestion by ordeal of battle. What has beent ie result? Have theinsurgentssucceeded, or have we succeeded? They wanted to get out of the Union; we wanted to retain them in the Union. That was the issue between us. We said that, notwithstanding their acts of secession and hostility, they were still States, and their citizens were bound to obey the Constitution and laws of the U.S. They said they were not States of the Union, and that their citizens were not bound by the Constitution and laws of the Union. The struggle has been made, the issue has been tried, the verdict has been rendered, and it is in our favor. success is ours. Well success ho "I Succeeded to what extent? Succeeded in keeping in the Union men who were endeavoring by force of arms to escape from the Union. The proposition of the honorable member is that we have succeeded only in part; we have put down the insurrection, but we have lost the States tO retain which was our objoct in car in on the conflict. If so, it can be hard y enabled a victory at all. Preservation was the puriosc; reservation was the duty; the countless lives tint have been lost, and the still more countless treasure that has been exended, have served. to be sure, the purpose olpputting down forcible resistance to the execution of the constitution and the laws, but leave the Union a Union only of some 21 States instead of 33 or 34. The victory, according to that theory, is but half achieved the object is but half accomplished. We wanted to bring them where they were when they started. They said the would not return to where they were when they started. We have put it out of their wer to take themselves out of the Union individually, but we have not been able to retain the States. They are hope lessly, absolutely gone, according to the theory of the honorable member. Can that be so, Mr. President? Is it possible that it can be so? If it be, I am byno means prepared to say that the object accomplished compensates at all for the sacrifices which have been made to accomplish ita dissevered Union, brought about, not by our consent; we protested against it; but if the honorable member is right in his theory, brought about because we could not prevent it. practically, he comes to the same conclusion that the former POTUS came to, as announced in the message which he sent to Congress announcing the existence of the insurrection, that there was no right to secede, but that there was no authority in the Government to prevent it. It makes very little difference whether the want of authority is acknowledged as a want apparent in the constitution, or whether it is maintained as a fact which cannot be avoided if the insurgents think proper to carry on the war for any length of timenot to be avoided if they pursue a certain course of conduct. Now, Mr. President, what difference in principle does it make as far as concerns the nestion which I am now discussing, whether t mm are 20 one States resolved upon standing by the Government and 11 only in hostility against it, or whether there be 11 who stand by it and 21 against it, and the 11 succoed? Massachusetts and Virginia, perhaps, at one cried in the history of the Government, might y uniting their forces have escaped the obligations of the Union. The States upon whose shoulders rested for support the arms of Washington, during the revolutionary struggle, were then allpowerful; and one of those States would have been erha s the most powerful State now in the Union at for the existence of involuntary servitude. I mean Virginia. If the remaining States had thought proper to resist it, those 2 States might by their physical power and patriotism have put own the insurrection; and, accOrding to the theory of the honorable member, then the Union, which our fathers thought consisted of 13 States, the States that had carried us successfully through the revolutionary struggle, would be reduced to two. What sort of a Congress would you have? 2 Senators from Massachusetts and 2 Senators from Virginia, and a larger number in the other House. Do you think that would be a constitutional condition of things?