Mr. RAYMOND. I have no doubt of it; not the slightest. I do not think that the treason of JeffersonDavis has anything to do with the fact that we conceded humane treatment to our prisoners of war. I merely alluded to the matterimight have elaborated itwhen I said that because we had granted to these States, as a Power waging war, rights usually accorded to nations at war, we were not therefore concluded from proceeding against them as traitors. The decision of the Supreme Court, to which I have once referred, if I understand it aright, asserts that we have the right to proceed against them as traitors, or rather that we had the right to exercise against them both the powers of soVereignty and of belligerents; that the one did not exclude the other. It would be an extraordinary circumstance if, because we treated them humanely as prisoners of war, we have not the right to hold them responsible to the laws they have broken.” It is amelition neverdoubted" says Justice Grier, in the decision so often referred to “flmt the belligerent party who claims to berover rmn "my merrier both belligerent and sovereign rights. Treating the other party as a belligerent, and usin only the milder modes of coercion which the law o nat ons has introduced to mitigate the rigomof war. Cannot be a subject of compla1nt. [orof clmm.] by the party to whomit is accorded as a graceor granted as a necessity.” Now, if accordin to the view I have presented, we are to eal with those States as States within the Union, the next question that recurs is, how are weto deal with them I The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. FlNCK] who preceded me took the ground that they had only to resume their places and their powers in the national Governmentthat their representatives have only to come into this all and take their seats without question and without conditions of an sort. cannot concur air, in this view. I o not think these States have any such rights. On the contrary, I think we have a full and perfect right to require certain conditions in the nature of guarantees for the future, and that right rests, primarily and tech nically, on the surrender we may and must require at their hands. The rebellion has been efeated. A defeat always implies a surren der, and in a political sense a surrender implies more than the transfer of the arms used on the field of battle. It implies, in the case of civilWar, a surrender of the principles and doctrines, of all the weapons and ) agencies, by which the war has been carried on. The military surrender was made on the field of battle, to our generals as the agents and representatives of the CommanderinChief of the armies of the U.S. But this is not all. They have still to surrender