Mr. RAYMOND. I up reciate that dietinction, but it does not in the least affect the argument. The gentleman holds that by public law habitual obedience to law must characterizea State; and I have shown that this obedience may be suspended and still the State exist. He now holds that habitual obedience to the constitution and laws of the U.S. is essential to the existence of a State as within the Union, and I propose to show that in this case also that obedience may be suspended without affectin the existence of the State as a State of the nion, The analogy between the 2, and between the arguments in both cases, is complete. The same principle which applies to the one applies to the o or also. c gentleman asks the question which I have read from. his speech. I now give him the an swer by Wheaten himself from the p e next to that from which the gentleman quotes. That distinguished author says: “The habitual obedience of the members of any political society to a superior authority must have once existed in order to constitute n sovereign State. But the temporary suspension of that obedience and of that authority in consequence of a civilWar does not necessarily extinguish the boi of a State although it may effect for a time its o nary relations with other States.” I think that rely, made by Wheaton, and not by me, is exactly pertinent to the question as submitted by the Gentfrom Ohio. It seems, therefore, on grounds of public law and on grounds of constitutional law in the U.S., that habitual obedience to law may be suspended without impairing the existence of the State in the sense of public law, or asa State of the Union under the constitution of the U.S. This suspension may occur from a variety of causes. Conquest is one of them. Suppose that in a war with England, that Power should take possession of the State of Massachusetts; suppose she should lant her armed force all around her borders, ta e possession of her capital, and wield for a time the whole sovereign power of the State. Suppose she does that for 6 months, would Massachusetts thereby cease to be a State of the Union? Suppose that this occupation should be prolonged for a year, would Massachusetts then cease to be a State of this Union? Suppose that occupation should continue for 2 years, or 3 cars, or 4 cars. Whenever that usurping power should e expelled from the State of Massachusetts, be it sooner or later, would she not then stand in her old place as one of the States of this Union? and would any action of Congress be renired to restore her to it?