If the right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory, surely, and by much stronger reason, this right must be the inevitable consequence of the sovereignty of the United States, wherever there is no local government. _Secondly._ The jurisdiction may also be derived from the _Rights of War_, which surely are not less abundant for Congress than for President. If the President, disregarding the pretension of State Rights, can appoint military governors within the Rebel States to serve a temporary purpose, who can doubt that Congress can exercise a similar jurisdiction? That of the President is derived from the war powers; but these are not sealed to Congress. If it be asked, where in the Constitution such powers are bestowed upon Congress, I reply, that they are found precisely where the President now finds his powers. But it is clear that the powers to “declare war,” to “suppress insurrections,” and to “support armies” are all ample for this purpose. It is Congress that conquers, and the same authority that conquers must govern. Nor is this authority derived from any strained construction; it springs from the very heart of the Constitution. It is among those powers, latent in peace, which war and insurrection call into being, but as intrinsically constitutional as any other power. Even if not conceded to the President, these powers must be conceded to Congress. Would you know their extent? They are found in the authoritative texts of Public Law,--in the works of Grotius, Vattel, and Wheaton. They are the powers conceded by civilized society to nations at war, known as Rights of War,--at once multitudinous and minute, vast and various. It would be strange, if Congress could organize armies and navies to conquer, and could not also organize governments to protect.