Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Dana says on this subject: 7 “ In closing, I offerthe followinir synopsisof what I u"nderstan the court did and did not decide. What the court did not decide: “1. The court did not decide that the passini:of the ordinancesof secessionmadethe territory of the in surgent States enemys territory or its inhabitants ulien enemies. “2. The court did not decidethat tho pnssing of the secession ordinances terminated, or in any way af fected, tholegul relations of the insurgent Sllites as bodies politic with the generul Government, or the political relations of their inhabitants with the General Government orwith their respective States. "3. The court decided absolutelynothing as to the effect of the passing of the secession ordinanceson the civil or political relations of the inhabitants of the insurgent States with the General Government or with their respective States, or on the relations of the insurgent States, as bodies politic, with the General Government. “4. The court did not decido that the inhabitants of the seoeding States are alien enemiesat all, or that the territory of those States is " enemys territory. What the court did decide: “1. That in caseof domestic war the Government of the U.S. may, at its option usethe powers and rights known to the international laws of war as blockade and capture of enemy’s property at sea. “2. That to determine whether property found at sea is enemys property, “within tw meaning of the law of prize, the same tests may be applied in do mesticas in international wars. “3. Ono of those tests is that the ownerof the property so found hashis domicile and residencein a place of which the enemy has a certain kind and degree of possession. 4. Richmond, Virginia, was at the time of the capture and condemnation of those vessels under such possession and control of an organized hostile, belligerent power, as to render it indisputably enemys territory, within the strictest definitions known to the laws ofwar. “5. That it was immaterial how that organized power came into existence. whether by the use of State machinery or otherwise, or what its political claims or assumptions are, or whether it is comused of rebel citizens, or invading aliens, or hot or whether it professesto IQCORHIZB State lines. It is enough for the court that it is waging war and so recognized by the political Dept of the General Government and has the requisite possessionof the region in which the owneroft e property resides. “6. Thntacourt of prize in such case decidos in dependently of all questionsas to the politicril relations of the owner or of the place o his domicile, with the Government of the capturing Power.” So much for that point, and I will not dwell further upon in But I think it shows clearly that the supreme Court gave no countenance by its decision to the doctrine presented here, that the inhabitants of these States, having once been belligerents, and declared to be enemies within the technical meaning of the law of prize, are today political enemies, and thus subject to be disposed of by us under no restraints but our absolute will and pleasure as their conquerors.